The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Ionic array: An array of beryllium ions such as these might be used as a memory device in a quantum computer.
NIST
Specially timed magnetic pulses could pave the way for large-scale quantum computing.
Quantum computing holds great promise as a way to factor huge numbers, potentially breaking ultra-secure cryptographic codes unbreakable by traditional computers. However, this promise has historically been tempered by practical concerns: quantum computers rely on particles and molecules that are extremely sensitive to the environment; therefore, any such system only works for milliseconds, and the more particles and ions are added to a system, the quicker its ability fades.
But now researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have demonstrated, for the first time, that the lifetime of quantum-computing bits, known as qubits, can be extended using simple operations. In their experiment, they showed that by applying specially timed magnetic pulses to qubits, made of beryllium ions, they could prolong the life of the quantum bits from about one millisecond to hundreds of milliseconds. The work is described in this week's Nature.
"The worst thing about quantum information from an experimental perspective," says Michael Biercuk, a researcher at NIST, "is that even if you do nothing to your qubit, just its interaction with the environment does something to it." Qubits, he explains, are dependent on the quantum magic of superposition, in which certain properties of a quantum system exist in two or more distinct states at once. Superposition is a fleeting thing, and it quickly starts to break down, or decohere, due to noise such as random electrical fluctuations in the environment, says Biercuk. But what Biercuk and his colleagues John Bollinger and Herman Uys have done is "mitigate the effects of decoherence."
This means that the researchers have bought some time to do more complex experiments, such as modeling quantum states of large molecules, says Biercuk. It also means that they could add more qubits to the system, essentially providing more computational horsepower, and still have enough time to perform some experiments. Additionally, notes Biercuk, the team showed that it's possible to use the approach for different types of quantum-computing systems, such as those that are built in a semiconducting material like silicon. In other words, the researchers have provided a general solution to a problem that plagues all researchers who work on quantum computers.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
National Instruments has gathered customer information and data regarding some of the cost differences between building a custom solution versus using NI off-the-shelf tools. Using this data, we built the Graphical System Design ‘Build vs. Buy’ Calculator. The calculator can help show the financial differences between building a custom solution versus buying an off-the-shelf system. This paper discusses the benefits and drawbacks of both a traditional custom design approach and off-the-shelf embedded tools.
View full PDF >Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
chrisjmiller
63 Comments
Misunderstanding?
"Quantum computing holds great promise as a way to factor huge numbers, potentially creating ultra-secure cryptographic codes unbreakable by traditional computers."
The first part of this sentence is true, but I disagree with the second half. The physics of quantum mechanics has enabled the transmission of secure codes over a fibre connection. The quantum properties of the photons are used to ensure that any eavesdropping must change the quantum state, and hence be apparent to the recipient. This is not quantum computing (as generally understood).
Use of quantum computers will break some existing public key cryptography methods that depend for their strength on the difficulty of factorisation of large numbers. I'm not aware of proposals to use quantum computers to support new forms of cryptography, but I'm open to correction.
Reply
Kate Greene
17 Comments
Re: Misunderstanding?
Hi Chris. Yes, you're right: quantum computers are used for breaking codes, not creating them. The article has been corrected accordingly.
Reply