quantum supremacy

“ pharmaceutical companies are also watching developments in this field intently, realising that quantum computers may be able to simulate complex chemical and biological processes that are far beyond the capability of digital computers. Huge facilities devoted to testing millions of drugs may one day be replaced by “virtual laboratories” that test drugs in cyberspace. ”

“ Even the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, Switzerland, the biggest science machine in the world, which slams protons together at 14 trillion electron volts to re-create the conditions of the early universe, now uses quantum computers to help sift through mountains of data. In one second, they can analise up to one trillion bytes generated by about one billion particle collisions. Perhaps one day quantum computers will unravel the secrets of the creation of the universe. ”

“ However, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman in 1959 saw a different approach to digital information. In a prophetic, pathbreaking essay titled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” and subsequent articles, he asked: Why not replace this sequence of 0s and 1s with sates of atoms, making an atomic computer? Why not replace transistors with the smallest possible object, the atom? ”

“ Digital bits can only carry one bit of information at a time, which limits their power, but qubits, or quantum bits, have almost unlimited lower. The fact that, at the atomic level, objects can exist simultaneously in multiple states is called superposition. ”

“ The problem facing quantum computers was also foreseen by Richard Feynman when he first proposed the concept. In order for quantum computers to work, atoms have to be arranged precisely so that they vibrate in unison. This is called coherence. But atoms are incredibly small and sensitive objects. The smallest impurity or disturbance from the outside world can cause this array of atoms to fall out of coherence, ruining the entire calculation. This fragility is the main problem facing quantum computers. ”

“ One day, Plank tried to derive the Rayleigh-Jeans catastrophe for his physics class, but with a strange, novel method. He was tried of doing it in the same old-fashioned way, so, purely pedagogical reasons, he made a bizarre assumption. He supposed that the energy emitted from an atom could only be found in tiny discrete packs of energy, which are called quanta. This was heresy, because Newton’s equations stated that energy should be continuous, not in packets. But when Planck postulated that the energy occurred in packets of a certain size, he found precisely the correct curve linking frequency and energy for light. This was a discovery of ages. ”

“ Although his theory indisputably fit the experimental data and opened up an entirely new branch of physics, he was hounded for years by stubborn, die-hard believers in the classical, Newtonian idea. Describing this blizzard of opposition, Plank wrote: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light. but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” But no matter how fierce the opposition was, more and more evidence began to pile up confirming the quantum theory. It was indisputably correct. ”

“ In 1930, Einstein had had enough. At the Sixth Solvay Conference in Brussels, Einstein decided he would go head-to-head and challenge Niels Bohr, the leading proponent of quantum mechanics. … “It was the greatest debate in intellectual history that I know about. In thirty years, I never heard of a debate between two greater men over a longer period of time on a deeper issue with deeper consequences for understanding this strange world of ours.” ”

“ He was famous for saying that the goal of every physicist “is to prove yourself wrong as soon as possible.” In other words, swallow your pride and admit that what you are doing may be a dead end, and prove it as soon as possible so you can move on the next idea. (As a research physicist, I actually think about this statement often. At some point physicists may have to admit that maybe their pet idea is wrong, and that they should quickly try a new approach.) ”