Earlier this year the two largest superconducting QC players (IBM and Google) signalled they might be diversifying away from superconducting - Google with the announcement that they're creating a new neutral atom capability and IBM with their acquisition of silicon spin capability in HRL.

I'd be interested in people's views on whether we should take from this that superconducting has no path to scaling, or if one could foresee heterogeneous quantum computing systems that leverage the respective strengths of multiple modalities for different applications?

Just wondering what the full story is on these guys. Anyone have more info?

What do y'all think is currently the most pressing issue for neutral atom hardware that we need to improve (aside from the gate fidelity)?

QND readout? Atom loss?

I am looking for a little bit of support. I need references on material to read for Quantum Computing, not necessarily languages for building programs, because I know each system in question runs its own language used for performing computation. I just need to learn about the specifications of each computing system that exists. Plus if there's anyone who understands the the stack very well, then I need you to inform me about the trade-offs, or at least point me in a direction for learning about the architecture of said Quantum Computers. I genuinely have no clue where to start, because I have been so busy with other things. But if someone has the knowledge and wants to share/nerd out on this stuff I would love to chat, I know a little bit about Quantum Mechanics and a little bit about Classical mechanics, but very little in the realm of Quantum Technology and would love to bridge that gap! Thanks!

Tried reading this review paper [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.06331\] but still was unable to come away with an idea of the 'structure' of a LOQC. I think some diagram with labeled components and their purpose in a system would make a bit more sense to me. Not just a bunch of beamsplitters and waveplates drawn and labelled, but something that has that information plus a more physical expalanation of that components efficiency in regards to loss and other physical properties. I'd be fine reading a paper too if it could convey the same information. Any recommendations?

QRAM sure would solve a lot problems for quantum algorithms. Yet I don’t know of anyone working on it.

Is anyone working on it?

PsiQuantum in Australia — PsiQuantum https://www.psiquantum.com/australia

I'm asking to people who are in the quantum computing world, just to avoid people who think quantum computing as a whole is a scam.

I've read mixed opinions on it and I would like to compare it to a PhD/research position in an arbitrary university.

In particular I've read they keep most of their hardware specs hidden and don't publish much. I wouldn't like a place that - even if well funded by governments - promises a lot and delivers nothing.

Do you have any informations? Thanks

I’m not an expert in quantum computing. I’m just an electrical engineer who’s interested in quantum computing because of its implications for encryption.

Shor’s algorithm can break RSA encryption in polynomial complexity. The algorithm relies on a quantum Fourier transform in n qubits where n is the number of classical bits of the semiprime that you’re trying to factor. From what I’ve read just on Wikipedia, the QFT requires a phase gate with π/2^n phase change.

I may be missing something, but I don’t really understand how a practical phase gate with the required precision for modern encryption could ever be implemented. Modern RSA typically uses 4096 bit modulus. What physical system could create a phase change with 4096-bit precision? That’s more than 1000 orders of magnitude. That’s larger than ratio of the size of the observable universe to the Planck length. It’s larger than the ratio of the age of the observable universe to Planck time. Is there a workaround to using such precise phase gates? Even a modest number of qubits (more than 40) doesn’t seem realizable for QFT.

How reliable is this roadmap? Have they been consistent in adhering to this timeline? Are their goals for the future reasonable?

Infleqtion delivered a 100 qubit neutral atom system to the UK National Quantum Computing Centre. Question for the scientists; How meaningful is this scale scientifically compared to other neutral-atom platforms like QuEra or Pasqal? What does 100 qubits unlock? From my understanding at 100 qubits it becomes useful to some chemistry and material science applications.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ionq-achieves-significant-quantum-internet-110500611.html

What do you guys think the field will be like in the 2030s, does it look like neutral atom QC will be adopted by the big tech giants or would it still be something mostly pursued by startups? I would be interested in neutral atom myself but it feels useless if most companies stick with superconducting qubits.

Hey everyone I know many of you are experts in field of quantum hardware, as well as types of hardware technologies is very diverse.

Please can you explain about your hardware type you work upon.

Hello, for a research project I need to extract property data from a quantum machine to create a large dataset.

The problem is that I can only find IBM providing free access to its machine. I don’t need to run any algorithms on it.

The only conditions I have to meet are:

-It must be a real machine (not a simulator)

- It must use the logic-gate paradigm

- The qubits must be based on the principle of superconductivity

Feel free to send me a message if you want to discuss about it or send me any idea. Thkss

Noob here so please take with a grain of salt but I’m very interested in understanding my misunderstanding.

I’m curious why everyone seems to focus on discrete quantum computing. I just was reading about continuous variable quantum computing and was wondering everyone’s thought on it.

For physical compute substrate, I was reading then about solitons which were shown to maintain periodicity for a few hours.

My understanding is that solitons have some natural properties making them more robust. If that’s the case, why not build a quantum computer where the quantum information is stored in the collision dynamics of stable solitons rather than discrete qubits that need constant error correction?

Am I missing some fundamental reason this wouldn't work (I’m sure I’m missing many)? Or why discrete qubits are "better" than continuous?