It’s not surprising that quantum computing has sparked a public uproar. An operational and practical quantum computer would be one of the decade’s most significant technological breakthroughs. The optimism is good, but some of the statements surfacing in popular media might be confounding. The injection of funding and scrutiny from internet powerhouses has piqued the curiosity of experts, who are now keen to declare a threshold step in the evolution of this astonishing technology. Quantum computing was seen to be “just around the horizon,” awaiting the technical expertise and enterprising drive of the IT industry to realize its full potential.
In general, we’ve understood as a society since the early 1990s that quantum computing may tackle issues that are difficult for traditional computers, said Bill Fefferman, assistant professor in the University of Chicago’s computer science department. Those were hypothetical outcomes; there were no experiments to back them up. We were only stating that, in theory, if a flawless quantum computer could ever be developed, it could accomplish these tasks. With so few qubits, quantum computers can do very little, and there is an unnecessary hype created about them. However, in a scathing new editorial for MIT Tech Review, the famous University of Maryland quantum physicist researcher, Sankar Das Sarma, advises everyone to wind down. He says that the study is exciting and might contribute to spectacular achievements. But, according to his research, things are moving slowly so far, and we’re not expected to be doing anything game-changing with technology in the near future.
This MIT researcher found that up to one million qubits, and maybe even more, would be required to develop the ideal quantum system that engineers are fantasizing about.
Silicon Valley venture investors, who appear to be sniffing blood in the water, have begun investments in new businesses aiming to construct quantum computers. According to him, the mainstream media has incorrectly interpreted the arrival of commercial players as the cause of recent technical acceleration rather than a reaction to these improvements. As a result, we now have a plethora of conflicting claims regarding the state of the art in the industry, where this industry is headed, and who will be the first to reach the ultimate objective of a large-scale quantum computer first. This is definitely unnecessary hype.
Furthermore, we still need to figure out how to cope with mistakes. He was also of the view that classical computers hardly have any hardware flaws; instead, the “blue screen of death” is caused by software vulnerabilities rather than component failures. At the end of the day, “quantum triumph” must not be confused with “versatility.” Hype isn’t always a terrible aspect of quantum computing; the sector requires business interest if it is to move beyond academics and realize the 90s promise.
The functional quantum computer will have uses that are unfathomable today, just as when the very first transistor was invented in 1947, no one could have predicted how it would eventually lead to cellphones and laptop computers. However, even quantum computing experts are becoming concerned about some of the highlighted claims today, notable statements about how and how fast it will be monetized. The technologies we have today are incredible scientific achievements, but they do not bring us any nearer to a quantum computer capable of solving a problem that anyone thinks about. We don’t understand how long that will take, but it’s a long way off, despite what the expanding business and its marketers would have you believe.