Mediaboss Marketing

Researchers at Yale have extended the lifetime of a qubit by 2.3 times, a major step in improving and proving the viability of quantum computers.

Sammi Kwon 12:43 am, Mar 31, 2023

Contributing Reporter

Vera Villanueva

Yale Daily News

Since the beginning of the quantum revolution in the early 20th century, scientists have been working to prove the functionality of quantum computing.

While in theory the quantum computer is a powerful tool with the ability to encode calculations at speeds faster than those of a classical computer, the physical proof of principle has yet to be demonstrated. However, recent developments by Yale researchers in quantum error correction could represent a major step in proving the feasibility and potential of quantum computers.

A qubit, or quantum bit, is a unit of quantum information that is physically constructed of circuits made of superconductors and cooled to very low temperatures to optimize the circuits efficiency. Yale researchers in the Devoret research group have successfully extended the lifetime of a qubit beyond the break-even point, seeing a gain in the preservation of information and the amount of operations that can be performed on a qubit in one lifetime.

We increased the lifetime by a factor of 2.3, so we more than doubled the number of operations that we can perform before the qubit begins to fail, said Luigi Frunzio, a senior research scientist in applied physics.

With the help of machine learning to optimize calibration and precision, the researchers used quantum error correction a process used to protect information encoded in qubits from errors due to quantum noise to achieve this breakthrough.

According to Frunzio, using the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill quantum error correction code, the research group was the first to see more errors corrected than errors produced in quantum information. Before this breakthrough, he said, there were more errors than corrections from quantum error correction codes.

Steve Girvin, Yales Eugene Higgins professor of physics, noted that prior to this study, many research groups across the world had gotten close to the break-even point. According to Girvin, by incorporating the efforts of interdisciplinary research and an accumulation of progress from over the years, this breakthrough was finally the first to extend the qubits lifetime above the break-even point to see a gain greater than one.

Having a stable qubit above the break-even point shows that the theories behind quantum computing are plausible, according to Baptiste Royer, former postdoctoral student in the Devoret research group.

One of the main claims is to show that it is possible to have a stable qubit above break-even at the heart of quantum error correction, Royer said.

All sources the News spoke to noted that in addition to being a step towards building more functional quantum computers, the breakthrough is also a proof-of-principle demonstration that shows that researchers may eventually be able to build a quantum computer that provides an advantage beyond any modern supercomputer.

While there is still a long way to go before quantum computers can be as effective as classical computers in terms of functionality, according to Girvin, this breakthrough is an important first step to improving the practicality of quantum computers.

This is a big step forward, though, there is still a huge distance to go to get a gain of millions or billions, Girvin said. But the journey to a billion begins with being above one. The grand challenge to solve is if quantum computers are going to be practical.

With this goal in mind, all three researchers mentioned that the next advancement needed to further validate quantum error correction and the practicality of quantum computing is extending the lifetime of qubits to the scale of billions. Royer added that they are also working on extending this breakthrough to more than one qubit such that complex algorithms can be implemented in the quantum computers.

With the feasibility of quantum error correction, better qubits and better machines altogether, quantum computation will not only be possible but also more concretely useful for disciplines beyond science and math, Frunzio said.

The first quantum computer, a two-qubit with the ability to load and output data, was built in 1989.

Read more:
Yale researchers achieve breakthrough in extending qubits lifetime ... - Yale Daily News

We make sense of the first three through programming rules and various fields of classical mechanics; the fourth is something else entirely.

For one, classical physics can predict, with simple mathematics, how an object will move and where it will be at any given point in time and space. How objects interact with each other and their environments follow laws we first encounter in high school science textbooks.

What happens in minuscule realms isnt so easily explained. At the level of atoms and their parts, measuring position and momentum simultaneously yields only probability. Knowing a particles exact state is a zero-sum game in which classical notions of determinism dont apply: the more certain we are about its momentum, the less certain we are about where it will be.

Were not exactly sure what it will be, either. That particle could be both an electron and a wave of energy, existing in multiple states at once. When we observe it, we force a quantum choice, and the particle collapses from its state of superposition into one of its possible forms.

Just as subatomic matter can exist two ways at once, it marks a strange intersection of order and disorder. While its hard to hammer down exactly what or where a particle will be, energy at the subatomic level moves only in discrete, concerted packets, or quanta, defying classical notions about continuous transfer of energy.

Then theres quantum entanglement, what Albert Einstein called spooky action at a distance. Its often described as two dice that always show the same number when rolled, together or even miles apart. When an entangled particle is measured, its partner instantaneously matches the measured particles state.

For Joanna Ptasinski, head of NIWC Pacifics Cryogenic Electronics and Quantum Research branch, this strangeness is what defines quantum: its a complex system of matter or information where these phenomena which cant be explained by classical notions of how the world works are possible.

Quantum is quirky, said Ptasinski, who holds a doctorate in electrical engineering. Its essence is superposition and entanglement. Were researching the power the naval applications lurking behind this weirdness.

Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, superposition, and entanglement are all part of a growing mathematical framework for subatomic phenomena called quantum mechanics, and it raises questions about the nature of reality as we know it. What can we learn from entangled particles for which space even vast expanses of it is no obstacle? If matter exists in many forms at once until we observe it, what role does observation play in building the world around us? And how do we harness a domain defined by potentiality?

This is what NIWC Pacific scientists explore in its labs, with its partners, and on the National Science & Technology Councils Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science. With quantum experts from across the nation, they ask: What will harnessing quantum phenomena mean for the Navy and the warfighter?

Answers fall in a few categories: sensing, computing, communications, and materials, and the Center has projects to show for each. Answers outside of practical applications have to do with building a quantum Navy: attracting dedicated talent, giving and receiving training, and contributing to national discussions about the future of quantum technology.

All answers point to a vision of a Navy equipped with even more secure communications networks, more advanced sensors, and the faster threat detection and response that comes with them. Its a vision of improved navigation, smarter autonomous systems, and more accurate modeling and simulation. Its unprecedented decision advantage at quantum speed in an increasingly uncertain world.

To Ptasinski, its more advanced supporting technologies. Thats what is needed in order for the field to mature, she said. How about a dilution fridge that isn't half the size of this office? Why not a small dilution fridge? And is that even possible?

The dilution fridge provides the low temperatures needed to measure quantum systems with accuracy. NIWC Pacifics dilution fridge functions in the tens of millikelvin colder than outer space and is one of only two across all warfare centers and the Naval Research Laboratory.

With a dilution fridge, researchers can measure and manipulate qubits, or bits of quantum information. Unlike classical bits, qubits can be in superposition of both binary values 0 and 1 at the same time. That superposition is the key to quantum computings exponential power.

Measuring the path of a qubit through steps in a quantum system is fundamental for quantum research; it teaches us how quantum systems work. And the more we know about how they work, the more we can use them to perform powerful computations.

Ptasinski explains this quantum walk by drawing what looks like a Pachinko machine on the back of this story draft. Drop a particle in at the top and use a traditional computer to figure out in which slot it will end up at the bottom, and youre looking at a major computational task. With just 10 entangled photons and eight layers of potential paths, knowing the probability distributions of where each particle will end up would require more circuits than there are stars in the universe.

Enter quantum. Run the same task on a quantum computer, and a qubits 0-and-1 superposition means more paths can be explored simultaneously. A classical computer would have to calculate the path of a bit expressing 0 separately from the path of a bit expressing 1; a quantum computer can explore both at once, allowing for faster, more intensive calculations. Its like doing linear algebra with complex numbers, Ptasinski said. And wouldnt it be fun to be able to do it with smaller, more powerful equipment?

To Ptasinski, fun would be the ability to build and entangle superconducting qubits, fit many qubits on a single microchip, and discover algorithms that would mitigate errors caused by environmental interferences. It's a very exciting field because we have a lot of puzzles that still need to be solved, she said. Our researchers dont want to work on something thats been done before. Were looking ahead at how quantum computing can solve real-life problems for the Navy.

Exploration of the new frontier wont decelerate anytime soon. Co-leads Naval Research Laboratory and NIWC Pacific established the Naval Quantum Computing Program Office Dec. 2 where quantum subject matter experts across all 14 naval warfare centers will collaborate on quantum applications for the Department of Defense.

The program office will manage access to the Air Force Research Laboratorys hub and its advanced quantum computing power on the IBM Quantum Network. First up for time in the hub is a project from NIWC Pacific.

Back in the Center's own labs, scientists and engineers are making arrangements for a new government-owned facility dedicated to quantum research. Theyll make and test their own prototypes in a lab designed to perform powerful, ultra-precise quantum experimentation.

Ptasinski continues to organize training opportunities for scientists at the Center and across the country. Soon NIWC Pacific will host a professor from the Naval Postgraduate School to teach a course on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, which will also be open to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

High performers will get a shot at a seat in IBMs Quantum Summer School, where distinguished quantum experts teach a small group of students from across the globe. Then NIWC Pacific students will make their way back to its quantum optics laboratory for hands-on experiments led by Ptasinski and her colleagues.

We have many dedicated and motivated scientists and engineers expanding our quantum portfolio, Ptasinski said when asked why NIWC Pacific is the right team for the job. Our researchers have connections to not only industry and other government labs, but also with researchers across the world. Were the U.S. experts in high-temperature superconductor sensors. Among the warfare centers, were leading quantum information science and technology.

Theres more to learn about quantum, the puzzle with no visible pieces. Zoom in and youll find shapeshifting pieces which match each other even miles apart, and a precarious system that falls out of its quantum state and into a classical one at the wrong temperature. But despite all its precarity and complexity, over hours of conversations about building a quantum Navy, Ptasinski expressed no doubts about the Centers ability to solve it.

If we are experiments away from making sense of the quantum world quanta of training, partnerships, and groundbreaking moments away then scientists at NIWC Pacific are making strides toward the answers.

NIWC Pacifics mission is to conduct research, development, engineering, and support of integrated command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, cyber, and space systems across all warfighting domains, and to rapidly prototype, conduct test and evaluation, and provide acquisition, installation, and in-service engineering support.

Link:
NIWC Pacific and its Partners are Building a Quantum Navy - navy.mil

With hundreds of European startups working on quantum and plenty of fresh cash being injected into the sector, the race to build a fully fledged large-scale quantum computer is on.

Unlike classical computers that operate on binary bits (0 or 1), quantum computers use qubits quantum bits which can exist simultaneously in multiple states, allowing for parallel computations. This can allow quantum computers to potentially calculate problems that even supercomputers cant handle.

A conventional computer is closer to an abacus than to a quantum computer, says Chris Ballance, cofounder of quantum computing startup Oxford Ionics.

To build a quantum computer, you can pick anything in principle that obeys quantum mechanics atoms, protons, electrons. This is why you see this zoo of different approaches to building the quantum computers, says John Morton, professor at UCL and CTO of London-based Quantum Motion.

Were currently in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era which means we have some quantum computing tech, but its not yet advanced enough to solve a problem without errors or perform better than a classical computer. Once we go beyond this era, humanity could unlock applications from finance and drug discovery to finding new materials to stall climate change.

And there are lots of ways to get there. Here are some of the technologies European quantum computing startups are using, and how they work.

The most mature approach used by the likes of IBM and Google is superconducting qubits. At the basic level, asuperconducting qubit is a circuit loop made up of metals that become superconducting (ie. able to conduct current when cooled down) with an electric current travelling around it. They use electric currents flowing through them to store and process information. When Google claimed quantum supremacy in 2019, it used a 53-qubit superconducting device, and in 2022, IBM unveiled Osprey, a 433-qubit superconducting processor.

In the UK, Oxford Quantum Circuits (OQC) has built an eight-qubit superconducting quantum computer named Lucy. Brian Vlastakis, its quantum R&D lead, says because all of its quantum information is encoded into electrical signals, it can use a lot of the same circuits that are used for other electronics.

The startup has been providing quantum-as-a-service since 2019. Lucy, for example, is available on the cloud (Amazon Braket) for customers to try out and learn more about how quantum computers could be useful for the problems that theyre trying to solve.

Vlastakis says one of the reasons hes excited about OQCs technology is that our architecture is incredibly flexible. We can essentially design many different quantum processor variations to function in a way that will work better for customers.

Another method is using trapped ion technology, which consists of trapping single atoms in place using an electromagnetic field. Unlike superconducting qubits, trapped ion qubits are identical to each other.

Ilyas Khan, cofounder and chief product officer of UK-headquartered Quantinuum, says trapped ion devices offer two advantages stability and circuit depth which provide relatively low error rates. However, its not clear how scalable the tech will be and the method is slower than superconducting.

At the moment theres no point to being fast if you cant do anything, says Khan.

While Quantinuum (and others such as IonQ and Alpine Quantum Technologies) rely on complex laser systems to control the trapped ions, Oxford Ionics uses a technology that can be integrated into a standard silicon chip.

Ballance says Oxford Ionics focus is on optimising a lower number of qubits with very low error rates, rather than scaling the number of qubits massively.

Most quantum computers on the market have far more qubits than they can use in useful computation because of the error rate, he says. So for example, IBM have their 433-qubit devices theyve launched, but when you benchmark them they perform less good than a perfect nine-qubit system, he says. Our focus is getting to those few 100 qubit devices as fast as possible.

While superconducting and trapped ion qubits were originally physics experiments in labs, Morton says Quantum Motion has a different approach: silicon-based qubits.

Were ultimately saying that for quantum computers to be useful youre going to need a lot of qubits. What does a lot mean? Well, hundreds of thousands or millions of qubits, he says. There arent many technologies that make millions of anything one example of something that has is the silicon transistor.

If you dont try to correct for errors, then its true maybe you can do something useful with just a hundred or a few hundred qubits, but the problem is you still are going to want to be able to run lots of problems, and run them many times, and so you still, in the end, want lots of qubits.

The startup hopes the silicon approach will be more scalable and cost-efficient, as it can build quantum processors with far less specialist technology, such as lasers or a high vacuum. Quantum Motions approach offers qubit densities that are highly miniaturised and its silicon-based quantum chips are typically a few millimetres across. Morton expects the cooling system required to operate the chip to be similar to a standard 19-inch server rack.

Another approach is photonic qubits,made from particles of light. PsiQuantum, a US company founded in the UK, says photons are the only way to reach a million qubits and a million qubits is the only way for a quantum computer to be useful.

There are many advantages when you decide to use photons, because first of all photons are a quantum particle that have no mass and no charge, so that means that photons are less exposed to disturbance than other kinds of techniques, says Marine Xech-Gaspa, chief of staff to the CEO of Quandela, a French startup also betting on photonics. So to be more concrete they can be manipulated at room temperature, because you dont have to be in a specific environment, also it consumes less energy.

Nordic Quantum Computing Group also has the aim of developing a quantum computing platform based on photonic integrated circuits.

Its focus is two-fold, according to Axel Mustad, its founder and CEO. On the hardware side, it will use quantum dot-based single photon sources, and on the software side it will develop algorithms which can be implemented on photonic hardware in particular algorithms to solve hard problems in capital markets and financial services, and in energy management and trading.

Other startups outside of those building hardware are also an important part of the race.

Steve Brierley is founder and CEO of Cambridge-based Riverlane, which is building an error correction layer (using different qubits types) that different hardware companies can use.

We call it an operating system, because operating systems manage complexity for the user, he says. This is like an additional fabric that sits on top of the qubits, really removes errors during the computation and it means it can do much longer and ultimately trillions of operations before failure.

Bristol-based Phasecraft is working on algorithms to provide to hardware companies.

If you want to do something useful you need to have a quantum algorithm to run on that quantum computer, because quantum computers are not just faster computers, you need to think in totally different ways to get the most out of them to do something useful, says Ashley Montanaro, cofounder of Phasecraft.

Were particularly thinking about near-term quantum computers, so the kind of machines that we have now, or that we might have in the next two to five years

Ultimately at this early stage, it would be impossible to claim one technology is better than another.

That would be foolhardy and in fact misleading we are years away from being able to evidence superiority in any given platform, says Khan. If you look at this moment in time and youre able to magically transport yourself to 2030, it would be a bit like measuring a marathon in its first or second mile.

But what he can say with confidence is that the early signs are that different architectures might lend themselves better to certain tasks in the future.

My expectation is that in 10 years, a lot of the dust will have settled, itll become very clear and the market structure will have changed from lots of noise and lots of different approaches sprouting up to consolidation and stabilisation of one or two hardware platforms that cut the mustard and a few other hardware platforms that are specialised, says Ballance.

And while funding and access to talent stay on quantum founders minds, the biggest battle is the sheer scale of the challenge facing quantum computing startups.

Its equivalent to landing on the moon, says Brierley. Its that kind of scale and ambition and so thats going to require bringing together lots of different skills and expertise and ideas. I dont think any one company is going to solve this problem.

Steph Bailey is Sifteds head of content and coproduces Sifteds flagship podcast. She tweets from @steph_hbailey

Visit link:
On the quest for qubits: Different types of quantum startups, explained - Sifted

Developers of post-quantum cryptography have successfully created a trial, data-transmission channel from Earth to satellites in multiple orbits that would be resistant to the hacking of the future.

The idea is to protect data routed via satellite clusters from being harvested and decrypted by quantum computers and to protect the operational technology communications that keep the arrays functioning. The challenge lies in maintaining resource-intensive, post-quantum protection along multiple hops as a signal is beamed around a cluster, with a data transmission rate that's acceptable for military and commercial real-time communications (and other applications).

During the test, carried out by QuSecure and Accenture, a data-transmission channel protected by both classical RSA-2048 and post-quantum encryption was opened to a low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite and switched to a higher-altitude geosynchronous orbit (GEO) satellite, and then beamed back down to Earth.

"As more organizations are increasingly relying on space technology to provide solutions, resiliency, and more relevant information, security of those systems and the data is paramount," said Paul Thomas, space innovation lead for Technology Innovation at Accenture, in a statement.

Once efficient quantum computing becomes a reality, the expectation is that clusters of them will have enough gas in the tank to break RSA-2048 encryption, something that even the most powerful of today's computers are incapable of achieving.

And presumably, when that happens, there will be legions of cybercriminal types pouring out of the woodwork to decrypt the many classified secrets that organizations, governments, and critical infrastructure (including satellite arrays) use to ward off mass operational disruption.

Granted, the timing on that breakthrough remains a moving target, but the satellite test is a step towards prepping for that doomsday scenario. Also, by employing post-quantum encryption now, it can protect against any "steal now, decrypt later" plans on the part of cyberattackers who might be stockpiling encrypted data in anticipation of a literal quantum leap.

"Outer space is getting more crowded and contested every day and providing reliable space-based security is critical in today's global economy," said Tom Patterson, quantum and space security lead at Accenture.

Follow this link:
Post-Quantum Satellite Protection Rockets Towards Reality - Dark Reading

ChatGPT and its wordsmith capabilities are all over the news, and for good reason. The large language model (LLM) at the heart of the chatbot can create impressive results, with some even claiming the era of human writers is nearing its end.

While the reality is most likely less catastrophic for us human writers, we must admit that the question of whether AI will end up taking our jobs did pass through our minds once or thrice. So, let's check out whether our readers can spot the difference between a human writer and an AI.

Instead of writing an entire essay and then letting ChatGPT come up with its own version of the same topic, we've decided to compare humans and ChatGPT based on short-form answers to various tech-related questions. We took some answers from TechSpot explainer articles and wrote some additional ones that are less "conceptual" to see what GPT 4.0 came up with.

Each question below features two answers: one made by a human and the other provided by ChatGPT. They're listed randomly on the left and on the right, and it's up to you to spot the difference. Can you tell which is which? You can click the poll below each answer and see how you do.

Before we start, a couple of additional disclaimers: first, this piece is not meant to be a formal experiment, just a fun take on the human vs. AI discussion. Second, if you've used ChatGPT before, then you know the bot is known to spew paragraphs and paragraphs of text, even when you ask basic questions. This is why we had to include an 80-word limit in our prompts; otherwise, the answers generated by ChatGPT would be considerably longer, unnecessarily ballooning this piece.

Let's get started.

Manufacturing processes: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the left. GPT's answer isn't completely accurate.

Throttling: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the left.

OLED and LCD: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the right.

PCIe lanes: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the right. GPT's answer is only partially correct.

Chip binning: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the right.

SATA SSD fit: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the right. GPT's answer is unaware of SATA-to-M.2 adapters even though they are a niche solution.

M.2 SSD to SATA: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the left.

Cryptography: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the right.

Quantum computing: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the left.

Path tracing: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the left. Also, GPT got it wrong this time.

SSD trimming: Which is the human answer?

The human answer is on the right.

So, how did you do? How many answers did you get right (out of 11)?

Continued here:
We Asked GPT Some Tech Questions, Can You Tell Which Answers ... - TechSpot