Does Google take the lead in achieving quantum hegemony? Some people took the opportunity to mock Huawei.

category:Internet
 Does Google take the lead in achieving quantum hegemony? Some people took the opportunity to mock Huawei.


Google has published a paper on NASAs official website, claiming that it has achieved quantum hegemony. But the paper was quickly withdrawn, and neither Google nor NASA responded. Media revealed that Google sources said the paper was withdrawn because the study had not been peer-reviewed.

But somebody already knows how cynical:

Essentially, Google serves for USAs propaganda system as well as the need to hold down the share price. Huawei really needs to learn one thing and take out all the code in one breath. Its too fast to do something useful right away, and it also needs commercial competitiveness. This is too difficult. Still, its quicker to send papers, quicker to send papers without peer review, and its more profitable to pull out papers and make big news. Although Huawei has the support of Sichuan, it can also refuel in propaganda.

According to the media, the definition of Googles Quantum Supremacy is controversial.

IBM says they dont use or care about the word quantum hegemony. They care about the concept of Quantum Advantage. In a real application scenario (such as finance, AI, cryptography), quantum computers can do significantly better than any classical computer.

Most people in the industry believe that quantum computers can not replace traditional computers, but can only be used as accelerators for specific problems in specific scenarios.

Quantum computers may change areas such as cryptography, chemistry and so on. Googles work has nothing to do with these practical applications.

Google has just built a 53-qubit superconducting quantum circuit on which it runs the task of sampling random quantum circuits. This task does not correspond to practical problems.

This task is to identify whether a random number generator is really random. Random and controversial things, how to define the standard of randomness?

This quantum computer (superconducting quantum processor) can perform more on this task than Summit, the worlds first supercomputing, and it can run in 200 seconds compared to 10,000 years. Heres another controversy. How can we prove that no matter what algorithms (including those that humans havent thought of yet) Overcomputing Summit cant compete with quantum computing in this task? How can we prove that Googles results are correct, since it takes 10,000 years to overcalculate Summit according to existing algorithms?

In fact, the fidelity of this quantum circuit sampling task is only 0.2%. The results are not reliable.

If Google achieves the ideal practical universal quantum computer with low error rate and large bits, and can surpass the classical computer in many practical algorithm tasks, it will be recognized as a big news, just like Alpha Dog. Now, of course, you can say that this is a milestone, but if someone does not care, you should not be dissatisfied, let alone compare with Huawei.

Huaweis PTT does have Flag, but Huaweis first is inevitable (it takes time for anyone to encounter this kind of thing targeted by the top powers), and the second Flag has not collapsed (it can be postponed, because time has not said die).

In July 2018, Google announced that it would cooperate with NASA to achieve quantum hegemony on 72-qubit Bristlecone chips, and simulate it on NASAs most powerful over-computing Pleiades. The comparison results were agreed to be 12 months until July this year.

Now Martinis, the leader of Googles quantum computing, feels that 72 bits are too difficult to manipulate to perform the complex task of sampling random quantum circuits. The reason is that the fidelity is too low (if the error rate is too high, error correction will only cause more errors, there is a threshold). This time, Google is working on a 53-qubit Syamore chip. If it cant keep the error rate and expand the number of qubits, then the quantum computer is still in the dream.

That is to say, even if all the disputes are put on hold, and Googles agreed rules of the game are followed, even if Googles papers are peer-reviewed and sent out on NASA, the original Flag does not stand still. (How many more concessions do I have to make)

Knowing that there is a highly praised answer, Googles propaganda as related to the trade war is anti-intelligence conspiracy theory. Ive always opposed conspiracy theory, and I believe that Googles team of scientists has nothing to do with the trade war, but that includes the statement made by Andrew Yang, the Democratic Partys presidential candidate (when it comes to password cracking, as Ive said before, password cracking has nothing to do with Googles work), and that publicity for this result is not political. Im afraid its too young. Experts in the United States described it as the first successful flight of the Wright brothers in Little Eagle Town, and the propaganda implications are self-evident.

Of course, some people may ask, even with so many concessions, why cant China do such a job?

In short, the United States is burning more money than China. To keep the quantum computer superconducting, dilution refrigerators and energy consumption are expensive, and this also shows that the technology is not practical at all, just a research toy that burns money. But China has also made a lot of progress, but has not used such eye-catching literary gimmicks to propagate.

Source: Editor-in-Charge of Observer Network: Wang Fengzhi_NT2541