Paper Title: A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits
URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12021
Resolves to true if this setup can be used to run a quantum algorithm such as Shor's in a way that achieves the theoretical speedup (ie. no using qubits as regular bits to simulate qubits).
Why this matters: 6100 qubits is 6x the currently biggest quantum computer, if there isn't a catch to this paper that I've missed, it's a big deal!
1,000People are also trading
@HarrisonNathan I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the point of the paper.
They did create a grid of atomic cubits, what they didn't do and never claimed is to be able to individually manipulate entangled states between them. This would be necessary to turn it into an actual computer that can run an algorithm. They didn't built a working 6100 qubit computer and never claimed to.
Also no one is going to run Shor's algorithm on it in the next month, you might want to extend the deadline by several years.
@ProjectVictory thanks this is really helpful for my understanding.
When other companies such as IBM state their quantum computers have 1,000 qubits, are they able to individually manipulate entangled states between them?
Ie. is the array structure unique in having this property, or is just a limitation in current quantum computer designs?
@ProjectVictory "While some crucial ingredients have yet to be demonstrated, especially the ability to rearrange atoms and entangle atomic qubits..." I'm going to go ahead and say that will never happen. Anyway 6100 entangled qubits is an absurd target.
But maybe the title shouldn't be "is this paper legit?" It just isn't showing a way to build a 6100 qubit computer.
@MathiasBonde Generally, yes, a working quantum computer can be set into any state. However, there are a lot of ifs and buts. In this case, it's not even a working computer yet. For the ones that do function there's something called "effective qubits" - I'm not going to attempt to explain it as I don't understand it enough. Also a big question is noise - it might technically work but be completely useless due to noise. Sorry for kinda dodging the question .
In this case, to make an anagogy with classical computers, they are saying "We found a very efficient method of making lots of transistors. Can we connect them in a useful way to make a CPU? Probably, but we haven't figured it out."
@HarrisonNathan Agree with you Harrison, based on the title of the paper it should resolve true, based on the resolution criteria it should resolve negative, but so should every other quantum computer.
Gonna go ahead and resolve this N/A.