Mediaboss Marketing

Image credit: Russell Huffman

By Ryan F. Mandelbaum and Olivia Lanes

What is Quantum Computing? Most of this blogs readers are already excited about this technology after all, weve spent many hours reading textbooks and documentation trying to figure out how to write programs for real quantum chips. But many of our friends, family members, and people we randomly encounter still scratch their heads when they hear the words quantum and computer put together. We think its high time that they learn about quantum computing, too.

Partially inspired by Talia Gershons awesome WIRED video where she explains quantum computing at five different difficulty levels, we came up with some stock quantum computing explanations you can use to start spreading your excitement for quantum computing to other people in your life (or, if youre new here, use to understand quantum yourself). While were excited about this technology, we tried our best to sidestep the hype; quantum computers are exciting enough on their own, and theres no need to exaggerate how far along they are, what they can do today, or what we hope theyll do in the future.

But, no matter who youre trying to explain quantum to, theres a core understanding we think everyone should have. A quantum computer is similar to a classical computer in a lot of ways. Just like a classical computer, you store information using some physical system. You have to initialize that system, then perform some sort of operations on it (in other words, run a program), and then extract the information. It differs from classical computing in two key elements, however:

These core counterintuitive ideas underlie the fundamental operations of quantum computing. Once you understand these two pieces, the rest is a matter of how deep youd like to learn, and how quantum algorithms might provide benefits to you, your life, or the industry you work in. You should also get started using Qiskit.

Each of these explanations are based mainly on our experiences and opinions, and you might have your own tricks to help get quantum computing across feel free to tell us about them, what worked, and what didnt in the comments!

Some problems are really hard for todays computers to tackle, like designing drugs, running machine learning algorithms, and solving certain kinds of math equations. But the ability to solve those problems could help humankind tackle some of its biggest challenges. Well, quantum computers represent a new kind of computing system under development today that solves problems using an architecture that follows the most fundamental laws of nature and we hope theyll one day be able to to solve these hard problems. You can even try them out for yourself.

Hey, you know what a computer is but do you know how it works? Well basically, it thinks of everything, the YouTube videos you watch, the letters on the screen, everything, in a special kind of code. Programs and apps are basically just instructions that change the code around, leading to the results you see on the screen. But theres only so many different kinds of things that a regular computer can do with that code. A quantum computer works similarly to a regular computer, but its code looks a little different, and it can do even more things to those codes than your parents computers can. Quantum computers are really new, so theyre not better than a regular computer juuust yet but we think that one day they might be able to solve some of the biggest challenges in the world. Maybe it will even help you do your homework faster or something.

What do I do for work? Well *cracks knuckles*

So, there are some problems that people would like to solve that take even the best supercomputers a ridiculously long amount of time to run problems like simulating chemistry or breaking big numbers into smaller factors. Quantum computers might be able to tackle these problems by relying on a different set of physical laws than your computer does. Your computer is really just lots of electrical switches, called bits, that represents everything using binary code. In other words, the language your computer speaks encodes everything as long strings of 0s or 1s, while programs are mathematical operations that can change zeros to ones and vice versa. However, at even at the most fundamental level, a quantum computers code and its corresponding hardware looks differently. Quantum bits, or qubits, dont have to be binary during the calculation; they can actually exist in well-defined combinations of 0 and 1.

Its kind of like, if I was a qubit, instead of having mashed potatoes OR asparagus, I can have a third of a helping of mashed potatoes and two thirds of a helping of asparagus so long as it adds up to a whole side dish. However, once the problem ends, the quantum computers can only give answers in binary code, with some probability determining the outcome. Its like, if someone wanted to know which side dish I had, they check by closing their eyes, shoving their fork onto my plate, and reporting only the first side dish they taste, with the probabilities determined by how much of each side I had on my plate when they went in for a bite. Qubits also interact differently from regular bits. Lets say that Olivia and Ryan are both at dinner, and you only know that between them theyve eaten a helping of potatoes and a helping of asparagus, and not whose dish has what sides on it. But even if they havent spoken since dinner started, if you did the same eyes-closed fork jab you did on my plate, the sides they picked will be more correlated than the usual rules of random guessing would allow.

A direct consequence of this quantum dinner behavior is that there exist different types of algorithms for quantum computers. In fact, due to the quantum nature of the processor, scientists have already shown that at least theoretically, some quantum algorithms can be run exponentially faster than their classical counterparts. Provided that we can build the hardware, all these sorts of near-impossible problems may one day have solutions within arms reach. Anyway, thats what I do at work. Can you pass the gravy?

Editor Note: While thankfully we havent encountered a large contingency of quantum computing conspiracies, hype and tabloid coverage has led to some worrying interpretations of what quantum can and cant do some indeed bordering on conspiracy-minded thinking. But according to at least one expert, the best way to speak with conspiracy theorists isnt with facts but with empathy.

Oh, youre worried about quantum computers? Whys that? I was actually really interested in learning more about them, too, and I didnt understand them at first. What have you learned so far? Huh, thats interesting. So far, Ive learned that some research labs are working on a new kind of computer that can solve certain problems that classical computers cant. I was definitely really interested in the science behind it. See, theyre more or less just computer processors that rely on a system of bits to solve problems. However, these quantum bits can perform a richer set of mathematical operations than classical bits, which makes them better at solving certain problems. What did you read that they could do? Portals and new dimensions, huh? Thats really interesting, but no, I did some research on my own and what the media doesnt want you to know is that these computers are more business-y than science fiction-y they might one day be revolutionary for chemistry, machine learning, and other topics. But the media also doesnt want you to know that these computers are still really early in their development like, they forget their information quickly and theres a lot of work to do before theyre something to worry about. There are actually services that let you try them out and program them on your own. Now tell me more about the UFO you saw

Quantum computers are a new kind of computer processor that one day might augment your current computing resources to tackle certain challenges difficult for todays classical computers alone. Quantum processors work in tandem with classical computers as part of a cloud-based computing workflow, providing value by performing mathematical operations challenging for classical processors. While theres no device capable of executing a killer app yet, research has demonstrated that the enhanced capabilities of quantum systems could accelerate the research and development process, and provide value to certain industries in the coming years chemical and materials design, drug development, finance, and machine learning, for example. In one report, Boston Consulting Group predicted that productivity gains by end users of quantum computing, both in cost savings and revenue generation opportunities, could equal $450 billion or more annually. Many Fortune-500 companies have already begun to research and develop domain-specific thought leadership in quantum computing so as to be prepared when the field matures.

Quantum processors are kind of like a GPU in the sense that theyre designed to handle specific tasks that the CPU isnt well-suited to handle. But unlike a GPU, quantum computers work using a different kind of hardware architecture, one that allows them to perform a richer array of logical operations than just Boolean logic. These hardware requirements lead to bulky systems, so todays developers hoping to exploit quantum resources run their code over the cloud, employing both classical and quantum processing power where necessary for their program.

Quantum computers are a nascent technology, so programming them today is can be a lot like writing code in assembly language, stringing individual quantum bits together into circuits using quantum logic gates. These circuits are similar to classical computers in that their programs begin by initializing the qubits into a string of zeroes and ones, then perform operations, then return an output. However, quantum gates can also produce superpositions of strings, creating well-defined combinations of bitstrings (though you can only end up with one of these bitstrings, determined by the rules of probability, at the end of the calculation). Further operations produce entanglement and interference, linking certain qubits together and changing those probability distributions such that certain bitstrings become more likely and certain bitstrings become less likely when you measure the final result.

Given how recently quantum programming languages arose, developers have organized into open source communities like Qiskit where they maintain the code used to access quantum computers. As part of that, theyre designing and implementing quantum algorithms that can run on these devices, and creating modules designed to harness the potential power of quantum computers without having to continually program individual bits kind of like building a higher-level programming language on top of the assembly language with which we access quantum computers today. You can learn more by getting started with Qiskit here!

Quantum mechanics might be confusing, but it can still be incredibly useful, even if youre not a physicist. A computer based on the laws of quantum physics might help solve problems in chemistry, machine learning, or even solving partial differential equations.

Objects following the rules of quantum mechanics can enter states called superpostions. If an objects state is in a superposition of 0 and 1, that means that the object is in a linear combination of both values simultaneously until a measurement forces the object into one state or the other, with the probability of measuring either state based on the coefficients of each state in the linear combination. These objects can also become entangled, meaning you cannot describe one object mathematically on its own; when we perform experiments on entangled particles, we find that their properties are more correlated than classical physics would otherwise allow. We use these principles to construct sets of quantum bits, or qubits. I cant know each qubit value individually I can only create these linear combinations from states that include both qubits. But if I measure one qubit and force it to choose, lets say it ends up measuring 1, then the other qubit will take on a value highly correlated with the first value more correlated than random chance alone would allow. We use these ideas to generate interference, where certain combinations of qubit values become more likely and certain ones become less likely.

In a classical computer, computational spaces add together, because bits can exist in only one state or the other, 0 or 1. In a quantum computer, the computational space grows exponentially as you add more bits (2^n where n is the number of bits) so its easy to understand how they can become powerful computational tools. Furthermore, there are certain problems that are hard for classical computers to compute. Because quantum computers themselves rely on quantum physics, they are better able to simulate quantum mechanical phenomena, like chemical interactions and bonds. Though the devices are noisy and error prone today, researchers hope that quantum computers will be able to utilize the properties of entanglement and interference to run some algorithms faster than a classical computer can, making solutions to these hard problems finally feasible. Together, these benefits might one day allow scientists to perform various elements of their jobs faster.

Macroscopic quantum effects have long been observed in superconducting circuits. However, it wasnt until theoretical developments showing that flux and voltage can be quantized circuit QED that this idea was applied to quantum information processing.

A superconducting transmon qubit is essentially a quantized anharmonic oscillator. The circuits macro state can be described by the quantized energy levels; the ground state (0), the excited state (1), or even higher order excited states as well (2, 3, 4, etc.). But because the circuit is anharmonic the energy transitions between states 0 and 1 is different than 1 and 2, so we can isolate the bottom levels with a microwave pulse at that frequency to create a quantum bit for information processing.

In order to read-out and control the state of a transmon, we couple the qubit to either a 2D or 3D resonator (the physics is the same). The qubit and the resonator interact in such a way that when we probe the resonator with a standing microwave tone, the resonant frequency will actually shift depending on if the qubit is in the ground or excited state. This is how we can read out and interact with the qubits that make up a quantum computer.

Coupling these qubit-cavity systems together in an array and allowing them to talk to other another with 2-qubit gates (essentially more finely tuned microwave pulses) creates a quantum processor. Running specific gates in a specific order on this processor can create quantum algorithms. By leveraging the processors quantum properties of entanglement, superposition and interference, some quantum algorithms can theoretically be run significantly faster than their classical counterparts. Once we have reached the point where applying these algorithms has become useful and advantageous, we will have achieved what we call the era of quantum advantage.

Whispers: Hey there, pup, listen. I told my boss I would be able to teach you quantum computing, but you barely understand how your doggy door works. So heres what Im gonna do. Im gonna train you how to give me your left paw when I say initialize. Then youre gonna give me your right paw when I say X-gate. Then when I say Hadamard gate, youre going to hop on your hind legs and give me both paws. When I say CNOT, youre going to roll over, and when I say measure, youre going to bark. If you do this for me Ill cut some salami up into your dinner tonight.

Hey, Boss! Yeah! I finally figured out how to explain quantum computing to the dog! Yep, Ill write it all down in the blog post tonight. Wanna see?

Get started using Qiskit here!

Go here to see the original:
How Do You Explain Quantum Computing To Your Dog (And Other Important People in Your Life)? - Medium

LONDON, June 11, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --Arqit Limited ("Arqit"), a leader in quantum encryption technology, has today announced at the G7 Leaders Conference in Cornwall, that it has formed an international consortium of companies and government organisations to provide its quantum encryption technology to government customers in a federated system concept, called Federated Quantum System (FQS). The UK, USA, Japan, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Austria are now represented.

Arqit invented a system which uses satellites to distribute quantum keys to data centres.These keys are delivered using a new patented protocol called ARQ19, which solves the "Global versus Trustless" problem which previously prevented the adoption of Satellite Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). Arqit further invented a method, called QuantumCloud to translate the benefits of this quantum key distribution to any form of endpoint or cloud machine without the need for any special hardware. The first version of QuantumCloud launches for live service to commercial customers in 2021.

Government customers typically have more stringent requirements for control and are more inclined to buy "Private Instances" of cloud technology rather than managed services.Arqit has therefore designed a different version of its technology to meet this need and has recruited a strong community of partners from allied countries to collaborate in bringing the FQS system to use.

Collaboration partners includeBT, Sumitomo Corporation, Northrop Grumman, Leonardo, QinetiQ Space N.V., qtlabs and Honeywell. Other Western Allied countries are expected to announce their inclusion during 2021.

FQS has been developed with support from the UK Space Agency (UKSA through its National Space Innovation Programme). The system consists of dedicated satellites, control systems and QuantumCloud software. It will be provided to the UK's "Five Eyes" allied governments and other international partners, allowing sovereign protection of strategic national assets andinteroperability for joint operations.

The first FQS satellites are to be integrated and tested at the National Satellite Test Facilityin Harwell near Oxford and are expected to be launched on Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne from Newquay in Cornwall in 2023, after the launch of the first commercial Arqit satellites. The role of Virgin Orbit in providing responsive launch services for government customers from any location is additive to the plan to deploy many FQS satellites to support the needs of a growing list of allied country partners.

Arqit'sChairman and Chief Executive Officer, David Williams, said, "FQS enables collaboration between NATO-allied governments around the world to form a federated version of QuantumCloud infrastructure. It also enables the Joint All Domain Command and Control vision to come to life.The FQS system is global in its nature, and there is now strong momentum in an international consortium joining forces to bring it into use."

General Stephen Wilson, Director ofArqit Inc., said, "For Allies working together Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) is essential. For JADC2 to work, we must have a real identity, credentialing, and access management solution.Arqit's technology makes trusted data security possible."

Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, Amanda Solloway MP,added, "As a global science superpower, the UK continues to make advances in quantum science which is revolutionising cyber-security across the world. Backed by government funding, Arqit is paving the way in developing a new generation of quantum technologies that defend against sophisticated cyber-attacks on national governments, strengthening our resilience and helping us all the build back better from the pandemic."

UK Space AgencyCEO, Graham Turnock, added,"Space technologies have become embedded in almost every aspect of our daily lives, and UK Space Agency funding is accelerating our development as a world leader in space technology. Arqit's advances in quantum technologies will strengthen the UK's resilience against harmful cyber-attacks, helping us protect our critical services. The announcement today shows the attraction of Arqit's model to our partners."

Head of Spaceport Cornwall, Melissa Thorpe,added, "This is a key consortium to be involved with, placing UK companies at the forefront of cutting-edge global technologies. Arqit's products will bring high-volume international business through launch at Spaceport Cornwall with Virgin Orbit. Not only does this provide us with advancements in UK innovation, but also brings that innovation to Cornwall, supporting high-skilled jobs and economic growth."

Dan Hart, CEO ofVirgin Orbit, commented, "Recent headlines from across the world show how vital it is to have encrypted communications supporting our economy and our security. The team at Arqit has already demonstrated that its encryption capabilities provide a critical service to a global customer base. By adding a space layer with its Federated Quantum System, Arqit is taking that service to an even higher level. We're delighted to support the team, and to add its quantum satellites to our manifest for flights out of Cornwall."

Kevin Brown, Managing Directorof BT Security, said,"BT is pleased to be part of the first phase of the FQS project, which aligns with our wider commitment to providing security solutions for the most critical organisations. As this project advances to a global stage, it provides a clear example of how the UK is playing a leading role in developing important new technologies."

Eiji Ishida, Executive Officer and General Manager, Lease, Ship and Aerospace Business Division of Sumitomo Corporation,said, "The FQS concept is important because it allows us to manage a local instance of the infrastructure and deliver the control that our defence customers will require.Sumitomo Corporation is pleased to be in this consortium, which is very far ahead of other technologies."

Professor Rupert Ursin ofqtlabs said, "Austria has been a strong supporter of the Satellite QKD technology which we have helped Arqit to build, and I am pleased that qtlabs is able to continue to represent Austria in this consortium and will try to bring the benefits of FQS to the Austrian and other government users."

Marina Mississian, Senior Director Space Payloads forHoneywell Aerospace, Canadaadded, "Satellite enabled quantum encryption is strategically important for Honeywell and Canada. With the support of the Canadian government, we have been pleased to be associated with Arqit's commercial mission and now to join the FQS system, which will further the collective security goals of the 'Five Eyes' community of nations."

Frank Preud'homme, Sales and Business Development Director forQinetiQ Belgium, said, "We have been pleased to support the Arqit space mission since 2017 and see strong potential for the creation of sovereign capabilities for a close alliance of allied countries in sharing this technology."

Norman Bone, Chair and Managing Director, Leonardo UK,concluded, "Leonardo and Telespazio recognise the increasingly digital nature of UK and allied national defence and security and the expectations of our customers that their systems are secure and resilient. The rapid, collaborative evaluation of new and cutting-edge technologies such as those developed by Arqit are a key element of Leonardo's strategy to establish and deliver next generation systems to our customers enabling effective and secure multi-domain operations including in the cyber and space domains."

The fundamental science behind Arqit's solutions to decades-old problems with Satellite QKD is important, but the company's ability to translate that into usable products that meet very precisely the needs of users is very advanced.This is a major advantage in moving quickly to implement the security technology amongst allied nations that will deliver valuable security improvements immediately and underpin the future of the quantum battlespace.

About Arqit Limited:

Arqit has invented a unique quantum encryption technology which makes the communications links of any networked device secure against current and future forms of hacking even an attack from a quantum computer. Arqit's product, called QuantumCloud, creates unbreakable software encryption keys, using satellite to deliver quantum information to data centres.The keys which are easy and efficient to use remotely with no hardware or disruption to software required. The software has universal application to every edge device and cloud machine in the world. Headquartered in the United Kingdom with subsidiaries in the United States, Arqit was founded in 2017 by UK satellite industry veteran David Williams. Visit us at http://www.arqit.uk.

SOURCE Arqit

https://arqit.uk

Excerpt from:
International partners and Government agencies join Arqit's Federated Quantum System - PRNewswire

How do we know were not living in a simulation like the Matrix? Jack Freedom, Bristol

Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.

Isnt this just the kind of article our biomechanical overlords would simulate in order to keep us compliant in our pods? kingsize

I took the red pill and nothing materially changed other than a rash that I had had for a week or so cleared up. OfficerKrupke

Not ruling it out, but if we were living in software, it is the most reliable software ever because there never seem to be any disruptive updates. Liam Collins

The idea that we may be living in a matrix-like universe is called the simulation theory, and was first proposed by Nick Bostrom. It argues that human technology is advancing at such a rate that in the future we will have the ability to simulate entire universes filled with details as rich and beautifully complex as our own. These simulated universes would also contain beings that were genuinely conscious as a result of the advanced ability of the simulation, and so would be able to think and would be self-aware in the same way that we can and do. These beings could be indistinguishable from us in terms of the depth of their minds, the only difference being that their life springs from circuit boards and artificial design rather than the real world which has given life to us. These beings then being no less able or imaginative than us would progress to a point of technological advancement at which they could create and run their own simulations. The simulated minds they create may do likewise, and so there could be simulations inside of simulations. There could be billions of universes therefore being simulated in a chain with only one base reality (the real world) at the start. That being the case, it looks far more likely that any one individual would be living in a simulated universe, rather than the real one. Once we acknowledge this possibility, we have to then consider that these odds apply to us as well, and so according to the theory presented we are far more likely to be living in a simulation than the real world.

One counter-argument is to consider that all of these simulations have a common feature: they all have their own simulation. The only universes that might not are the most recent simulated universe as its inhabitants may not have yet developed the technology necessary to create one or base reality, if it turns out that simulated universes arent possible. That brings our odds to at least 50/50, which is preferable to the billion-to-one conclusion reached above. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning assumes that each universe can only create one simulation, which isnt necessarily the case. Each node on the chain of simulated universes could have many branches, each with a simulation on the end, bringing our probability back to a billion to one. Benjamin Dixon

What I always found interesting about Bostroms idea are the ethics that emerge from this assumption. Basically, we should treat any simulated realities with dignity and respect because if we dont we increase the likelihood that consciousnesses in higher reality than ours will mess around with us. I feel much worse about how I treated my Sims now ajukes2k

You may be interested in David Kippings paper A Bayesian Approach to the Simulation Argument. Much more maths than in Bostroms original paper, but nothing fiercer than conditional probability and Bayes theorem, plus the ability to sum a geometric series, is required. As you would expect, there is a good reference list to the literature too. FinrodFelagund

Michio Kaku has an answer to this basically because the smallest size of computer needed to run a simulation of the universe is the universe, its more logical that we are not living in a simulation. I rather like the idea, though, not least because it offers the small chance of an afterlife for the non-religious. ChestnutSlug

Not sure thats true, though. All thats needed is to run something that looks like the universe from where you (or I) sit. You might think theres an awfully big universe out there, but if you only look at it in terms of images on a screen, then all you need is enough power to colour the screen. I quite like the idea that a simulation explains quantum uncertainty: a state doesnt exist until its been observed: its uncertain because it hasnt yet been computed in the simulation No, of course I dont believe any of that. Its fun trying, though. conejo

Some make a pretty plausible case: see Rizwan Virks The Simulation Hypothesis and a recent article in Scientific American. Madeleine Bowman

In a sense we definitely are living in a simulation, since what we experience is coloured by our own subjective experience and judgment, expectations, our own programming. How we perceive reality may well not be particularly real. Equally, what we are fed, plus groupthink, societal norms and expectations, biases etc, can take us a very long way from being able to objectively perceive what is actually happening. We are a walking Matrix. Its virtually impossible to step outside your own normal and become embedded in any kind of physical reality. You only have to look at other societies around the world and how insane they look to realise that. LorLala

We are living in a simulation, but not in the way you might think. In his Republic, Plato suggests that something can be tangible and unreal, if it purports to be something it is not (as, for example, a statue does). As I look out of my window in 2021 England, I see toytown cars styled to look friendly or aggressive, driving past toytown newbuild houses designed to evoke fake nostalgia, inhabited by disoriented people who vote for toytown politicians and watch surgically enhanced bimbos on so-called reality TV. They are firmly in the Matrix, albeit a tangible Matrix, and the perennial sigh of their oppressed nature is O God, please protect me from everything that is really real. Im sorry, but you did ask. PaulSecret

The state of the current government suggests that if not a simulation we may indeed be living in some bleak dark comedy. DougieGee

There is one piece of evidence that we do indeed live in a computer simulation. Computer simulations are essentially bits of data, which is then presented to the observer, or subject in our case, as objects. The data will contain all the information necessary to present and animate the object, including physical and psychological characteristics. But if the data gets corrupted, then the representation will change unexpectedly. And if the data goes missing, or is corrupted so badly that it cannot be represented, then the object will disappear.

Which brings me to my one piece of evidence. How many of us have experienced the inexplicable disappearance of a sock? Yes, folks, odd socks are the irrefutable piece of evidence that we do live in a simulation and a sloppy one at that vishnoo

Id like to think that a simulated world would be free of pandemics, Brexits, racists, uber-capitalists, tabloid journalism, super-leagues, sausage bans, hives, bad smells, etc surely our Matrix Overlords would want to keep us feeling complacently sedate and safe, no? Unless, of course, they had a sadistic streak and a perverse sense of humour AmadanDubh

Have you never played SimCity? At least half the fun is in dealing with disasters. saganIsMyHomeboy

This is an epistemic question. Epistemology is concerned with the beliefs we hold and our justification for holding them. I think the lesson to learn from this question is that we can never be sure we know anything, and we should be constantly evaluating our beliefs and what we know in light of new experience, as it is difficult to prove we know anything. Cauvghn

Philosophers have spent an absurd amount of time attempting to answer this question. It is easy to get bogged down in the details of their numerous theories of knowledge, which typically (though not invariably) seek to establish that we do know that were not living in a simulation. But all those theories dont change a fundamental point: everything would appear to us exactly the same if we are in a (perfect) simulation and if we are not. As a result, there will always be some reason to doubt that things are as they appear. Paul Dimmock

The Middle East, The Kardashians, racism and sexism, homophobia and Trump are all human conditions that a machine could never attain the sufficient level of advanced stupidity to mimic. Jeremy Jones

We are living in a simulation that we create with our own minds. Pavlin Petkov

I believe simulation theory and our current understanding of physics are incompatible. Why?

First, if everything in the simulation is captured within one framework of true determinism, the processing power required for modelling all the trajectories of the units of the (visible) universe would in fact, due to power laws, implode our own universe even when some of these trajectories and interactions are constrained by universal rules (eg max velocity at speed of light). And yes, this applies even when the simulation is run via quantum computing (where we assume near perfect energy efficiency). In line with the mass-energy equivalence law, E=mc2, information processing = energy = mass. Then, for simulation theory to still work out, there needs to be an external source of mass/energy, far greater than the universe simulated, to supply the processing power to simulate our universe. This simulation therefore needs to physically take place in a different and far greater entity than our own visible universe. So: if simulation operates within a framework of true determinism, processing power required for that single simulation we are all in would far exceed that which is embodied by the mass of our known universe. The simulated universe would implode in on itself or requires a significant supply from an external entity entirely.

Now, if we want to look beyond this processing-power limitation in the case of true determinism, a simulation of our universe would require a significant degree of random laws dictating trajectories of the simulated agents (whatever their unit may be) and their interactions (leading to a far smaller parameter space, which relieves, to some extent, from the power laws that determinism needs to deal with). Computer science has yet to find a way for generating true randomness, but for arguments sake, lets assume this limitation has long been overcome by those superior beings running the simulation of our universe. Then still, by virtue of lack of complete determinism, no simulation would be the same; no valuable patterns can be extracted from each simulation alone. This would mean that multiple (read: infinitely many) simulations would need to be run in parallel in order to be valuable, implying that, without determinism, simulation theory would go hand in hand with infinitely many parallel universes. This again lands us at the issue of processing power required, which would be so enormous that it seems to defeat the purpose. Whatever that may be (perhaps this is the true psychological conundrum with simulation theory). Naomi Iris van den Berg

When I first watched The Matrix, I had to leave the room when it got to the point of the choice between the red pill and the blue pill, and chose to watch the microwave oven instead It was too plausible and I couldnt decide which one to take. Being a diagnosed schizophrenic probably plays a role here, but I also receive enough synchronicity and precognition to keep me guessing as to the possibility of a holographic universe. It would explain a lot. There is a theory along these lines in modern quantum physics and Ive seen the physical universe behave in some odd ways. My life remains beautifully surreal in the meantime Sam Bowen

We dont and we never will. But Occams razor applies; is it simpler/more likely to assume that everything we perceive has been designed by a third-party intelligence, expending vast amounts of energy for unknown reasons, or that the world around us is real? My money is on the latter. SRF999

Does it matter? I dont think it does. What does matter is how we respond to our perceived surroundings. Each of us has to adapt our responses in such a way that they affect our immediate environment so that we effect beneficial change. Such is intelligence. It doesnt matter by whom or why the environment was constructed. The funny thing to note is that as a whole (as opposed to us acting as individuals), we appear to be failing big style. Bristol_Fashion

Hilary Putnam posed the question: how do we know that we are not just a brain in a vat. Putnam argued that to ask the question we needed to have a causal relationship with an external world and hence we could not possibly just be brains in a vat. My own view however is that this assumes that we can peek outside the box, which I do not think we can.

We could therefore very possibly be just brains in a vat (or just living in a simulation like the Matrix). It really depends on what you are asking. Most people assume that there has to be something else either a god or external reality that contains our universe. So in effect yes we are just brains in a vat. But what is the vat?

I would suggest that language is the vat. Language is the DNA of the mind and we are living in a sea of language, which is creating the consciousness that we perceive. If you think about it, you can only pose the question that you did (Are we in a simulation?) because of language. It is language that enables that thought to be entertained and language that demands the answer. The physical, material world has no need for that question. It has all the answers it needs. It is only the human mind and the language that structures it that creates this need. soonah98

What does it matter? The objective of life is the same try to enjoy yourself while making things better for others, your loved ones and society as a whole. Simon Ellis

Here is the original post:
Readers reply: how do we know were not living in a simulation like the Matrix? - The Guardian

Text size

Honeywell International and Cambridge Quantum Computing are merging their fledgling quantum-computing businesses into a stand-alone company, signaling that quantum computing is just about ready for prime time.

The deal, essentially, combines Honeywells (ticker: HON) quantum hardware expertise with privately held Cambridges software and algorithms. It is as if the two had formed the Apple (AAPL) of the quantum computing world, in that Apple makes hardware, operating systems, and software applications.

This is an inflection point company that will drive the future of quantum computing, said Tony Uttley, currently the president of Honeywells quantum business. He will be president of the new company.

Honeywell says quantum computing can be a trillion-dollar-a-year industry some day, just like smartphones, although for now, the smartphone market is some 2,000 times bigger. Moving now, at the point before the gap begins to close, could be a win.

We are at a [industry] phase where people are looking to hear more about practical quantum use cases and investors want to know if this is investible, said Daniel Newman, founder of Futurum, a research and advisory firm focused on digital innovation and market-disrupting technologies.

This deal will speed the process of investor education. The new business is targeting $1 billion in annual revenue in the next two to four years. Wed be disappointed if we were only at a billion in a few years, said Ilyas Khan, Cambridges CEO and founder. He will be CEO of the new company, which he said will decide whether to pursue an initial public offering by the end of the year.

A name for the business has yet to be chosen.

The new company plans to have commercial products as soon as late 2021. The initial offerings will be in web security, with products such as unhackable passwords. Down the road, there are commercial applications in chemicals and drug development.

In terms of sheer brainpower the new enterprise is impressive. It will have about 350 employees, including 200 scientists, 120 of them with doctorate degrees.

The company will start off with a cash injection of about $300 million from Honeywell. The industrial giant will own about 54% of the new company for contributing its cash and technology.

Honeywell stock isnt reacting to the news. Quantum computing is still too small to move the needle for a $160 billion conglomerate. Shares were down slightly in early Tuesday trading, similar to moves in the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Year to date, Honeywell stock has gained 7%.

Write to Al Root at allen.root@dowjones.com

Continued here:
Honeywell Takes Quantum Leap. The Apple of Quantum Computing Is Here. - Barron's

The research proposes novel circuit designs that significantly reduce the resources needed to gain a quantum advantage in derivative pricing calculations

BOSTON, June 09, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Zapata Computing, a leading enterprise software company for quantum-classical applications, today announced the results of a research project conducted with the global bank BBVA. The projects aim was to identify challenges and opportunities for quantum algorithms to speed up Monte Carlo simulations in finance. Monte Carlo simulations are commonly used for credit valuation adjustment (CVA) and derivative pricing. The research proposes novel circuit designs that significantly reduce the resources needed to gain a practical quantum advantage in derivative calculations, taking years off the projected timeline for the day when financial institutions can generate real value from quantum computers.

Fueled by regulatory pressure to minimize systemic financial risk since the global financial crisis of 2008, banks and other financial institutions have been increasingly focused on accounting for credit risk in derivative pricing. In the US, similar regulation exists to stress-test financial scenarios for Comprehensive Capital Analysis andReview (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank compliance. Monte Carlo simulation is the standard approach for this type of risk analysis, but the calculations required which must account for all possible credit default scenarios are immensely complex and prohibitively time-consuming for classical computers. Zapata and BBVAs research reveals practical ways for quantum algorithms to speed up the Monte Carlo simulation process.

Our innovative approach to quantum-accelerated Monte Carlo methods uses a novel form of amplitude estimation, combined with additional improvements that make the quantum circuit much shallower, in some cases hundreds of times shallower than the well-known alternatives in the literature, said Yudong Cao, CTO and founder of Zapata Computing. This approach reduces the time needed for a quantum computer to complete the CVA calculation by orders of magnitude, and also dramatically reduces the number of qubits needed to gain a quantum advantage over classical methods. Zapata highlights that, in their enterprise customer collaborations, they perform in-depth studies of how much quantum computing resource will be required to obtain practical benefit for business operations. This type of in-depth research can directly inform the hardware specifications needed for quantum advantage in specific use cases.

Improving the performance of these calculations in realistic settings will have a direct impact on the technological resources and costs required for financial risk management, said Andrea Cadarso, BBVA Mexicos Team Lead for Quantitative & Business Solutions. The implications of this research are not limited to CVA calculations. We intend to extend our approach to other applications in quantitative finance, where Monte Carlo simulations are widely used for everything from policy making and risk assessment to financial product pricing calculations.

The BBVA-Zapata Computing joint publication is the result of one in a series of research initiatives thatBBVA Research & Patents launched in 2019. These projects, conducted in partnership with leading institutions and companies including Spanish National Research Council, Multiverse, Fujitsu and Accenture, explore the potential advantages of applying quantum computing in the financial sector.

Escolstico Snchez, leader of the Research & Patents discipline at BBVA, emphasized BBVA's intention to continue exploring this cutting-edge technology: BBVA is fully committed to its work in the quantum area. The bank has assembled a quantum team and is getting professionals from different areas involved in the development of a set of quantum solutions that meet the bank's needs.

About Zapata ComputingZapata Computing, Inc. builds quantum-ready applications for enterprise deployment using our flagship product Orquestra. Zapata has pioneered a new quantum-classical development and deployment paradigm that focuses on a range of use cases, including ML, optimization and simulation. Orquestra integrates best-in-class quantum and classical technologies including Zapatas leading-edge algorithms, open-source libraries in Python, and more. Zapata partners closely with hardware providers across the quantum ecosystem such as Amazon, Google, Honeywell, IBM, IonQ, Microsoft and Rigetti. Investors in Zapata include Comcast Ventures, BASF Venture Capital, Honeywell Ventures, Itochu Corporation, Merck Global Health and Robert Bosch Venture Capital.

Media Contact:Anya NelsonScratch Marketing + Media for Zapata Computinganyan@scratchmm.com617.817.6559

Originally posted here:
BBVA and Zapata Computing Release Study Showing the Potential to Speed Up Monte Carlo Calculations for - GlobeNewswire