wp-plugin-hostgator
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source:https:\/\/www.quantamagazine.org\/the-best-qubits-for-quantum-computing-might-just-be-atoms-20240325\/#comments<\/a><\/br> Lukin\u2019s lab at Harvard has been among those leading the way. In December, he and his colleagues reported<\/a> that they created programmable quantum circuits with hundreds of neutral-atom qubits and had performed quantum computations and error correction with them. And this month, a team at the California Institute of Technology reported<\/a> that they made an array of 6,100 atomic qubits. Such results are increasingly winning converts to this approach.<\/p>\n \u201cTen years ago I would not have included these [neutral-atom] methods if I were hedging bets on the future of quantum computing,\u201d said Andrew Steane<\/a>, a quantum information theorist at the University of Oxford. \u201cThat would have been a mistake.\u201d<\/p>\n A key issue in the contest between qubit types is how long each kind of qubit can maintain its superposition before it is altered by some random (for example, thermal) fluctuation. For superconducting qubits like IBM\u2019s and Google\u2019s, this \u201ccoherence time\u201d is typically around a millisecond at best. All steps of a quantum computation must happen within that time frame.<\/p>\n One advantage of encoding information in the states of individual atoms is that their coherence times are typically far longer. Moreover, unlike superconducting circuits, atoms of a given type are all identical, so bespoke control systems aren\u2019t needed to input and manipulate subtly different quantum states.<\/p>\n And whereas the wiring used to link up superconducting qubits into quantum circuits can become horribly complicated \u2014 more so as the system scales up \u2014 no wiring is needed in the case of atoms. All the entangling is done using laser light.<\/p>\n This benefit initially presented a challenge. There\u2019s a well-developed technology for carving out complicated microelectronic circuitry and wires, and one probable reason IBM and Google invested initially in superconducting qubits is not because these were obviously the best but because they required the kind of circuitry such companies are used to, said Stuart Adams<\/a>, a physicist at Durham University in the United Kingdom who works on neutral-atom quantum computing. \u201cLaser-based atom optics looked totally unfamiliar to them. All the engineering is completely different.\u201d<\/p>\n Qubits made of electrically charged atoms \u2014 known as ions \u2014 can also be controlled with light, and ions were long regarded as better qubit candidates than neutral atoms. Because of their charge, ions are relatively easy to trap in electric fields. Researchers have created ion traps by suspending the ions in a tiny vacuum cavity at ultralow temperatures (to avoid thermal jiggling) while laser beams switch them between different energy states to manipulate the information. Ion-trap quantum computers with dozens of qubits have now been demonstrated, and several startups are developing the technology for commercialization. \u201cSo far, the system with the highest performance in terms of fidelity, control and coherence has been trapped ions,\u201d Saffman said.<\/p>\n Trapping neutral atoms is harder because there\u2019s no charge to hold onto. Instead, the atoms are immobilized within fields of intense light created by laser beams, called optical tweezers. The atoms typically prefer to sit where the light field is most intense.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s a problem with ions: They all have an electric charge of the same sign. That means the qubits repel one another. Jamming a lot of them into the same small space gets harder the more ions there are. With neutral atoms, there\u2019s no such tension. This, researchers say, makes neutral-atom qubits much more scalable.<\/p>\n
\nThe Best Qubits for Quantum Computing Might Just Be Atoms<\/br>
\n2024-03-26 21:58:44<\/br><\/p>\nBattle of Qubits<\/strong><\/h2>\n