Quantum Computers Finally Beat Supercomputers in 2019 @ ´´Quantum Computing is the use of quantum-mechanical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement to perform computation. A quantum computer is used to perform such computation, which can be implemented theoretically or physically[1]:I-5 There are two main approaches to physically implementing a quantum computer currently, analog and digital. Analog approaches are further divided into quantum simulation, quantum annealing, and adiabatic quantum computation. Digital quantum computers use quantum logic gates to do computation. Both approaches use quantum bits or qubits.[1]:2–13´´

Do the downloads!! Share!! The diffusion of very important information and knowledge is essential for the world progress always!! Thanks!!

  • – – > > Mestrado – Dissertation – Tabelas, Figuras e Gráficos – Tables, Figures and Graphics – ´´My´´ Dissertation #Innovation #Countries #Time #Researches #Reference #Graphics #Ages #Age #Mice #People #Person #Mouse #Genetics #PersonalizedMedicine #Diagnosis #Prognosis #Treatment #Disease #UnknownDiseases #Future #VeryEfficientDrugs #VeryEfficientVaccines #VeryEfficientTherapeuticalSubstances #Tests #Laboratories #Investments #Details #HumanLongevity #DNA #Cell #Memory #Physiology #Nanomedicine #Nanotechnology #Biochemistry #NewMedicalDevices #GeneticEngineering #Internet #History #Science #World

Pathol Res Pract. 2012 Jul 15;208(7):377-81. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2012.04.006. Epub 2012 Jun 8.

The influence of physical activity in the progression of experimental lung cancer in mice

Renato Batista Paceli 1Rodrigo Nunes CalCarlos Henrique Ferreira dos SantosJosé Antonio CordeiroCassiano Merussi NeivaKazuo Kawano NagaminePatrícia Maluf Cury


GRUPO_AF1 – GROUP AFA1 – Aerobic Physical Activity – Atividade Física Aeróbia – ´´My´´ Dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

GRUPO AFAN 1 – GROUP AFAN1 – Anaerobic Physical Activity – Atividade Física Anaeróbia – ´´My´´ Dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

GRUPO_AF2 – GROUP AFA2 – Aerobic Physical Activity – Atividade Física Aeróbia – ´´My´´ Dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

GRUPO AFAN 2 – GROUP AFAN 2 – Anaerobic Physical Activity – Atividade Física Anaeróbia – ´´My´´ Dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

Slides – mestrado – ´´My´´ Dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto



Avaliação da influência da atividade física aeróbia e anaeróbia na progressão do câncer de pulmão experimental – Summary – Resumo – ´´My´´ Dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto



Lung cancer is one of the most incident neoplasms in the world, representing the main cause of mortality for cancer. Many epidemiologic studies have suggested that physical activity may reduce the risk of lung cancer, other works evaluate the effectiveness of the use of the physical activity in the suppression, remission and reduction of the recurrence of tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of aerobic and anaerobic physical activity in the development and the progression of lung cancer. Lung tumors were induced with a dose of 3mg of urethane/kg, in 67 male Balb – C type mice, divided in three groups: group 1_24 mice treated with urethane and without physical activity; group 2_25 mice with urethane and subjected to aerobic swimming free exercise; group 3_18 mice with urethane, subjected to anaerobic swimming exercise with gradual loading 5-20% of body weight. All the animals were sacrificed after 20 weeks, and lung lesions were analyzed. The median number of lesions (nodules and hyperplasia) was 3.0 for group 1, 2.0 for group 2 and 1.5-3 (p=0.052). When comparing only the presence or absence of lesion, there was a decrease in the number of lesions in group 3 as compared with group 1 (p=0.03) but not in relation to group 2. There were no metastases or other changes in other organs. The anaerobic physical activity, but not aerobic, diminishes the incidence of experimental lung tumors.

´´We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries.´´ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0189-z Published:  Daniel J. Benjamin, James O. Berger, […]Valen E. Johnson Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages6–10 (2018)

Um mundo além de p < 0,05 « Sandra Merlo – Fonoaudiologia da Fluência

´´My´´ Monografia – Monograph – Induction of benznidazole resistance in human Trypanosoma cruzi isolates – Indução de resistência ao benzonidazol em isolados humanos de Trypanosoma cruzi – UFTM – Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro – Uberaba 

Avaliação da influência da atividade física aeróbia e anaeróbia na progressão do câncer de pulmão experimental – Summary – Resumo

Article – ´´My´´ dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

Feedback positivo de pessoas sobre minha dissertação pelo Messenger – Facebook. Positive feedback of people about my dissertation, blog and YouTube channel by Facebook – Messenger. Year – Ano: 2018


My suggestion of a very important Project…

Apostila – Pubmed

A Psicossomática Psicanalítica – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

ÁCIDO HIALURÔNICO – HIALURONIC ACID – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

Slides – Mestrado final – ´´My´´ dissertation – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

Avaliação da influência da atividade física aeróbia e anaeróbia na progressão do câncer de pulmão experimental – Summary – Resumo

O Homem como Sujeito da Realidade da Saúde – Redação – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

Aula_Resultados – Results – FAMERP – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

As credenciais da ciência – The credentials of Science – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto BaixarFrases que digitei – Phrases I typed

Frases que digitei – Tecnologia – Informations about blog I did





aging – animal models

Nanomedicine an evolving research (Opinion article I typed)


Will you embrace AI fast enough

MICROBIOLOGIA – MICROBIOLOGY – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto

Genes e Epilepsia – Genes and epilepsy – Faculty of Medicine of Sao Jose do Rio Preto




p-Value – Valor de p






Quantum Computers Finally Beat Supercomputers in 2019

#16 in our top science stories of 2019.

By Stephen OrnesDecember 28, 2019 1:00 PM

Jonathan Dowling, Todd Moulder - LSU

LSU physicist Jonathan Dowling (right), shown with alumnus Todd Moulder, has pushed the growth rate in quantum computing. (Credit: LSU)


Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsSIGN UP

In his 2013 book, Schrödinger’s Killer App, Louisiana State University theoretical physicist Jonathan Dowling predicted what he called “super exponential growth.” He was right. Back in May, during Google’s Quantum Spring Symposium, computer engineer Hartmut Neven reported the company’s quantum computing chip had been gaining power at breakneck speed. 

The subtext: We are venturing into an age of quantum supremacy — the point at which quantum computers outperform the best classical supercomputers in solving a well-defined problem.

Engineers test the accuracy of quantum computing chips by using them to solve a problem, and then verifying the work with a classical machine. But in early 2019, that process became problematic, reported Neven, who runs Google’s Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab. Google’s quantum chip was improving so quickly that his group had to commandeer increasingly large computers — and then clusters of computers — to check its work. It’s become clear that eventually,  they’ll run out of machines. 

Case in point: Google announced in October that its 53-qubit quantum processor had needed only 200 seconds to complete a problem that would have required 10,000 years on a supercomputer.

Neven’s group observed a “double exponential” growth rate in the chip’s computing power over a few months. Plain old exponential growth is already really fast: It means that from one step to the next, the value of something multiplies. Bacterial growth can be exponential if the number of organisms doubles during an observed time interval. So can computing power of classical computers under Moore’s Law, the idea that it doubles roughly every year or two. But under double exponential growth, the exponents have exponents. That makes a world of difference: Instead of a progression from 2 to 4 to 8 to 16 to 32 bacteria, for example, a double-exponentially growing colony in the same time would grow from 2 to 4 to 16 to 256 to 65,536. 

Neven credits the growth rate to two factors: the predicted way that quantum computers improve on the computational power of classical ones, and quick improvement of quantum chips themselves. Some began referring to this growth rate as “Neven’s Law.” Some theorists say such growth was unavoidable.  

We talked to Dowling (who suggests a more fitting moniker: the “Dowling-Neven Law”) about double exponential growth, his prediction and his underappreciated Beer Theory of Quantum Mechanics. 

Q: You saw double exponential growth on the horizon long before it showed up in a lab. How?

A: Anytime there’s a new technology, if it is worthwhile, eventually it kicks into exponential growth in something. We see this with the internet, we saw this with classical computers. You eventually hit a point where all of the engineers figure out how to make this work, miniaturize it and then you suddenly run into exponential growth in terms of the hardware. If it doesn’t happen, that hardware falls off the face of the Earth as a nonviable technology. 

Q: So you weren’t surprised to see Google’s chip improving so quickly?

A: I’m only surprised that it happened earlier than I expected. In my book, I said within the next 50 to 80 years. I guessed a little too conservatively.

Q: You’re a theoretical physicist. Are you typically conservative in your predictions?

People say I’m fracking nuts when I publish this stuff. I like to think that I’m the crazy guy that always makes the least conservative prediction. I thought this was far-out wacky stuff, and I was making the most outrageous prediction. That’s why it’s taking everybody by surprise. Nobody expected double exponential growth in processing power to happen this soon.

Q: Given that quantum chips are getting so fast, can I buy my own quantum computer now?

A: Most of the people think the quantum computer is a solved problem. That we can just wait, and Google will sell you one that can do whatever you want. But no. We’re in the [prototype] era. The number of qubits is doubling every six months, but the qubits are not perfect. They fail a lot and have imperfections and so forth. But Intel and Google and IBM aren’t going to wait for perfect qubits. The people who made the [first computers] didn’t say, “We’re going to stop making bigger computers until we figure out how to make perfect vacuum tubes.”

Q: What’s the big deal about doing problems with quantum mechanics instead of classical physics? 

A: If you have 32 qubits, it’s like you have 232 parallel universes that are working on parts of your computation. Or like you have a parallel processor with 232 processors. But you only pay the electric bill in our universe. 

Q: Quantum mechanics gets really difficult, really fast. How do you deal with that?

A: Everybody has their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. Mine is the Many Beers Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. With no beer, quantum mechanics doesn’t make any sense. After one, two or three beers, it makes perfect sense. But once you get to six or 10, it doesn’t make any sense again. I’m on my first bottle, so I’m in the zone.

[This story originally appeared in print as “The Rules of the Road to Quantum Supremacy.”]


Scientists Catch a Quantum Jump as It HappensThe Physics of Christmas: Wormholes and Other Tricks Santa Might Use to Get His Job DoneNew Quantum Tech is About to Bring a Major Boost to Gravitational Wave Detections


TECHNOLOGYBe Very Afraid: Online Voting Systems Fail Even for Political Bloggers


MY SCIENCE SHOP2020 Deep Space Mysteries Calendar

MY SCIENCE SHOPElements Flashcards

MY SCIENCE SHOPEinstein’s Universe




Sign up for our weekly science updates.SIGN UPView our privacy policy



Save up to 70% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.Subscribe





Quantum computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search

This article’s tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia’s guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Quantum computer based on superconducting qubits developed by IBM Research in ZürichSwitzerland. The device shown here will be inserted into a dilution refrigerator and cooled to under 1 kelvin.

Quantum Computing is the use of quantum-mechanical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement to perform computation. A quantum computer is used to perform such computation, which can be implemented theoretically or physically[1]:I-5 There are two main approaches to physically implementing a quantum computer currently, analog and digital. Analog approaches are further divided into quantum simulationquantum annealing, and adiabatic quantum computation. Digital quantum computers use quantum logic gates to do computation. Both approaches use quantum bits or qubits.[1]:2–13

Qubits are fundamental to quantum computing and are somewhat analogous to bits in a classical computer. Qubits can be in a 1 or 0 quantum state. But they can also be in a superposition of the 1 and 0 states. However, when qubits are measured the result is always either a 0 or a 1; the probabilities of the two outcomes depends on the quantum state they were in.

Quantum computing began in the early 1980s, when physicist Paul Benioff proposed a quantum mechanical model of the Turing machine.[2] Richard Feynman and Yuri Manin later suggested that a quantum computer had the potential to simulate things that a classical computer could not.[3][4] In 1994, Peter Shor developed a quantum algorithm for factoring integers that had the potential to decrypt all secured communications.[5]

Despite ongoing experimental progress since the late 1990s, most researchers believe that “fault-tolerant quantum computing [is] still a rather distant dream”.[6] On 23 October 2019, Google AI, in partnership with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), published a paper in which they claimed to have achieved quantum supremacy.[7] While some have disputed this claim, it is still a significant milestone in the history of quantum computing.[8]

The field of quantum computing is a subfield of quantum information science, which includes quantum cryptography and quantum communication.


Quantum operations[edit]

The Bloch sphere is a representation of a qubit, the fundamental building block of quantum computers.

The prevailing model of quantum computation describes the computation in terms of a network of quantum logic gates. What follows is a brief treatment of the subject based upon Chapter 4 of Nielsen and Chuang.[9]

A memory consisting of {\textstyle n}{\textstyle n} bits of information has {\textstyle 2^{n}}{\textstyle 2^{n}} possible states. A vector representing all memory states has hence {\textstyle 2^{n}}{\textstyle 2^{n}} entries (one for each state). This vector should be viewed as a probability vector and represents the fact that the memory is to be found in a particular state.

In the classical view, one entry would have a value of 1 (i.e. a 100% probability of being in this state) and all other entries would be zero. In quantum mechanics, probability vectors are generalized to density operators. This is the technically rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum logic gates, but the intermediate quantum state vector formalism is usually introduced first because it is conceptually simpler. This article focuses on the quantum state vector formalism for simplicity.

We begin by considering a simple memory consisting of only one bit. This memory may be found in one of two states: the zero state or the one state. We may represent the state of this memory using Dirac notation so that{\displaystyle |0\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |1\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\end{pmatrix}}}{\displaystyle |0\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |1\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\end{pmatrix}}}A quantum memory may then be found in any quantum superposition {\textstyle |\psi \rangle }{\textstyle |\psi \rangle } of the two classical states {\textstyle |0\rangle }{\textstyle |0\rangle } and {\textstyle |1\rangle }{\textstyle |1\rangle }:{\displaystyle |\psi \rangle :=\alpha \,|0\rangle +\beta \,|1\rangle ={\begin{pmatrix}\alpha \\\beta \end{pmatrix}};\quad |\alpha |^{2}+|\beta |^{2}=1.}{\displaystyle |\psi \rangle :=\alpha \,|0\rangle +\beta \,|1\rangle ={\begin{pmatrix}\alpha \\\beta \end{pmatrix}};\quad |\alpha |^{2}+|\beta |^{2}=1.}In general, the coefficients {\textstyle \alpha }{\textstyle \alpha } and {\textstyle \beta }{\textstyle \beta } are complex numbers. In this scenario, one qubit of information is said to be encoded into the quantum memory. The state {\textstyle |\psi \rangle }{\textstyle |\psi \rangle } is not itself a probability vector but can be connected with a probability vector via a measurement operation. If the quantum memory is measured to determine if the state is {\textstyle |0\rangle }{\textstyle |0\rangle } or {\textstyle |1\rangle }{\textstyle |1\rangle } (this is known as a computational basis measurement), the zero state would be observed with probability {\textstyle |\alpha |^{2}}{\textstyle |\alpha |^{2}} and the one state with probability {\textstyle |\beta |^{2}}{\textstyle |\beta |^{2}}. The numbers {\textstyle \alpha }{\textstyle \alpha } and {\textstyle \beta }{\textstyle \beta } are called quantum amplitudes.

The state of this one-qubit quantum memory can be manipulated by applying quantum logic gates, analogous to how classical memory can be manipulated with classical logic gates. One important gate for both classical and quantum computation is the NOT gate, which can be represented by a matrix{\displaystyle X:={\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}}.}{\displaystyle X:={\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}}.}Mathematically, the application of such a logic gate to a quantum state vector is modelled with matrix multiplication. Thus {\textstyle X|0\rangle =|1\rangle }{\textstyle X|0\rangle =|1\rangle } and {\textstyle X|1\rangle =|0\rangle }{\textstyle X|1\rangle =|0\rangle }.

The mathematics of single qubit gates can be extended to operate on multiqubit quantum memories in two important ways. One way is simply to select a qubit and apply that gate to the target qubit whilst leaving the remainder of the memory unaffected. Another way is to apply the gate to its target only if another part of the memory is in a desired state. These two choices can be illustrated using another example. The possible states of a two-qubit quantum memory are{\displaystyle |00\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |01\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |10\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\1\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |11\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\0\\1\end{pmatrix}}.}{\displaystyle |00\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |01\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |10\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\1\\0\end{pmatrix}};\quad |11\rangle :={\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\0\\1\end{pmatrix}}.}The CNOT gate can then be represented using the following matrix:{\displaystyle CNOT:={\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&1\\0&0&1&0\end{pmatrix}}.}{\displaystyle CNOT:={\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&1\\0&0&1&0\end{pmatrix}}.}As a mathematical consequence of this definition, {\textstyle CNOT|00\rangle =|00\rangle }{\textstyle CNOT|00\rangle =|00\rangle }, {\textstyle CNOT|01\rangle =|01\rangle }{\textstyle CNOT|01\rangle =|01\rangle }, {\textstyle CNOT|10\rangle =|11\rangle }{\textstyle CNOT|10\rangle =|11\rangle }, and {\textstyle CNOT|11\rangle =|10\rangle }{\textstyle CNOT|11\rangle =|10\rangle }. In other words, the CNOT applies a NOT gate ({\textstyle X}{\textstyle X} from before) to the second qubit if and only if the first qubit is in the state {\textstyle |1\rangle }{\textstyle |1\rangle }. If the first qubit is {\textstyle |0\rangle }{\textstyle |0\rangle }, nothing is done to either qubit.

In summary, a quantum computation can be described as a network of quantum logic gates and measurements. Any measurement can be deferred to the end of a quantum computation, though this deferment may come at a computational cost. Because of this possibility of deferring a measurement, most quantum circuits depict a network consisting only of quantum logic gates and no measurements. More information can be found in the following articles: universal quantum computerShor’s algorithmGrover’s algorithmDeutsch–Jozsa algorithmamplitude amplificationquantum Fourier transformquantum gatequantum adiabatic algorithm and quantum error correction.

Any quantum computation can be represented as a network of quantum logic gates from a fairly small family of gates. A choice of gate family that enables this construction is known as a universal gate set. One common such set includes all single-qubit gates as well as the CNOT gate from above. This means any quantum computation can be performed by executing a sequence of single-qubit gates together with CNOT gates. Though this gate set is infinite, it can be replaced with a finite gate set by appealing to the Solovay-Kitaev theorem.



Integer factorization, which underpins the security of public key cryptographic systems, is believed to be computationally infeasible with an ordinary computer for large integers if they are the product of few prime numbers (e.g., products of two 300-digit primes).[10] By comparison, a quantum computer could efficiently solve this problem using Shor’s algorithm to find its factors. This ability would allow a quantum computer to break many of the cryptographic systems in use today, in the sense that there would be a polynomial time (in the number of digits of the integer) algorithm for solving the problem. In particular, most of the popular public key ciphers are based on the difficulty of factoring integers or the discrete logarithm problem, both of which can be solved by Shor’s algorithm. In particular, the RSADiffie–Hellman, and elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman algorithms could be broken. These are used to protect secure Web pages, encrypted email, and many other types of data. Breaking these would have significant ramifications for electronic privacy and security.

However, other cryptographic algorithms do not appear to be broken by those algorithms.[11][12] Some public-key algorithms are based on problems other than the integer factorization and discrete logarithm problems to which Shor’s algorithm applies, like the McEliece cryptosystem based on a problem in coding theory.[11][13] Lattice-based cryptosystems are also not known to be broken by quantum computers, and finding a polynomial time algorithm for solving the dihedral hidden subgroup problem, which would break many lattice based cryptosystems, is a well-studied open problem.[14] It has been proven that applying Grover’s algorithm to break a symmetric (secret key) algorithm by brute force requires time equal to roughly 2n/2 invocations of the underlying cryptographic algorithm, compared with roughly 2n in the classical case,[15] meaning that symmetric key lengths are effectively halved: AES-256 would have the same security against an attack using Grover’s algorithm that AES-128 has against classical brute-force search (see Key size).

Quantum cryptography could potentially fulfill some of the functions of public key cryptography. Quantum-based cryptographic systems could, therefore, be more secure than traditional systems against quantum hacking.[16]

Quantum search[edit]

Besides factorization and discrete logarithms, quantum algorithms offering a more than polynomial speedup over the best known classical algorithm have been found for several problems,[17] including the simulation of quantum physical processes from chemistry and solid state physics, the approximation of Jones polynomials, and solving Pell’s equation. No mathematical proof has been found that shows that an equally fast classical algorithm cannot be discovered, although this is considered unlikely.[18] However, quantum computers offer polynomial speedup for some problems. The most well-known example of this is quantum database search, which can be solved by Grover’s algorithm using quadratically fewer queries to the database than that are required by classical algorithms. In this case, the advantage is not only provable but also optimal, it has been shown that Grover’s algorithm gives the maximal possible probability of finding the desired element for any number of oracle lookups. Several other examples of provable quantum speedups for query problems have subsequently been discovered, such as for finding collisions in two-to-one functions and evaluating NAND trees.

Problems that can be addressed with Grover’s algorithm have the following properties:

  1. There is no searchable structure in the collection of possible answers,
  2. The number of possible answers to check is the same as the number of inputs to the algorithm, and
  3. There exists a boolean function which evaluates each input and determines whether it is the correct answer

For problems with all these properties, the running time of Grover’s algorithm on a quantum computer will scale as the square root of the number of inputs (or elements in the database), as opposed to the linear scaling of classical algorithms. A general class of problems to which Grover’s algorithm can be applied[19] is Boolean satisfiability problem. In this instance, the database through which the algorithm is iterating is that of all possible answers. An example (and possible) application of this is a password cracker that attempts to guess the password or secret key for an encrypted file or system. Symmetric ciphers such as Triple DES and AES are particularly vulnerable to this kind of attack.[citation needed] This application of quantum computing is a major interest of government agencies.[20]

Quantum simulation[edit]

Since chemistry and nanotechnology rely on understanding quantum systems, and such systems are impossible to simulate in an efficient manner classically, many believe quantum simulation will be one of the most important applications of quantum computing.[21] Quantum simulation could also be used to simulate the behavior of atoms and particles at unusual conditions such as the reactions inside a collider.[22]

Quantum annealing and adiabatic optimization[edit]

Quantum annealing or Adiabatic quantum computation relies on the adiabatic theorem to undertake calculations. A system is placed in the ground state for a simple Hamiltonian, which is slowly evolved to a more complicated Hamiltonian whose ground state represents the solution to the problem in question. The adiabatic theorem states that if the evolution is slow enough the system will stay in its ground state at all times through the process.

Solving linear equations[edit]

The Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations or “HHL Algorithm”, named after its discoverers Harrow, Hassidim, and Lloyd, is expected to provide speedup over classical counterparts.[23]

Quantum supremacy[edit]

John Preskill has introduced the term quantum supremacy to refer to the hypothetical speedup advantage that a quantum computer would have over a classical computer in a certain field.[24] Google announced in 2017 that it expected to achieve quantum supremacy by the end of the year though that did not happen. IBM said in 2018 that the best classical computers will be beaten on some practical task within about five years and views the quantum supremacy test only as a potential future benchmark.[25] Although skeptics like Gil Kalai doubt that quantum supremacy will ever be achieved,[26][27] in October 2019, a Sycamore processor created in conjunction with Google AI Quantum was reported to have achieved quantum supremacy,[28] with calculations more than 3,000,000 times as fast as those of Summit, generally considered the world’s fastest computer.[29] Bill Unruh doubted the practicality of quantum computers in a paper published back in 1994.[30] Paul Davies argued that a 400-qubit computer would even come into conflict with the cosmological information bound implied by the holographic principle.[31]


There are a number of technical challenges in building a large-scale quantum computer,.[32] David DiVincenzo listed the following requirements for a practical quantum computer:[33]

  • scalable physically to increase the number of qubits;
  • qubits that can be initialized to arbitrary values;
  • quantum gates that are faster than decoherence time;
  • universal gate set;
  • qubits that can be read easily.

Sourcing parts for quantum computers is very difficult: Quantum computers need Helium-3, a nuclear research byproduct, and special cables that are only made by a single company in Japan.[34]

Quantum decoherence[edit]

Main article: Quantum decoherence

One of the greatest challenges is controlling or removing quantum decoherence. This usually means isolating the system from its environment as interactions with the external world cause the system to decohere. However, other sources of decoherence also exist. Examples include the quantum gates, and the lattice vibrations and background thermonuclear spin of the physical system used to implement the qubits. Decoherence is irreversible, as it is effectively non-unitary, and is usually something that should be highly controlled, if not avoided. Decoherence times for candidate systems in particular, the transverse relaxation time T2 (for NMR and MRI technology, also called the dephasing time), typically range between nanoseconds and seconds at low temperature.[35] Currently, some quantum computers require their qubits to be cooled to 20 millikelvins in order to prevent significant decoherence.[36]

As a result, time-consuming tasks may render some quantum algorithms inoperable, as maintaining the state of qubits for a long enough duration will eventually corrupt the superpositions.[37]

These issues are more difficult for optical approaches as the timescales are orders of magnitude shorter and an often-cited approach to overcoming them is optical pulse shaping. Error rates are typically proportional to the ratio of operating time to decoherence time, hence any operation must be completed much more quickly than the decoherence time.

As described in the Quantum threshold theorem, if the error rate is small enough, it is thought to be possible to use quantum error correction to suppress errors and decoherence. This allows the total calculation time to be longer than the decoherence time if the error correction scheme can correct errors faster than decoherence introduces them. An often cited figure for the required error rate in each gate for fault-tolerant computation is 10−3, assuming the noise is depolarizing.

Meeting this scalability condition is possible for a wide range of systems. However, the use of error correction brings with it the cost of a greatly increased number of required qubits. The number required to factor integers using Shor’s algorithm is still polynomial, and thought to be between L and L2, where L is the number of qubits in the number to be factored; error correction algorithms would inflate this figure by an additional factor of L. For a 1000-bit number, this implies a need for about 104 bits without error correction.[38] With error correction, the figure would rise to about 107 bits. Computation time is about L2 or about 107 steps and at 1 MHz, about 10 seconds.

A very different approach to the stability-decoherence problem is to create a topological quantum computer with anyonsquasi-particles used as threads and relying on braid theory to form stable logic gates.[39][40]

Physicist Mikhail Dyakonov has expressed skepticism of quantum computing as follows:So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be… about 10300… Could we ever learn to control the more than 10300 continuously variable parameters defining the quantum state of such a system? My answer is simple. No, never.[41]


Quantum computing models[edit]

There are a number of quantum computing models, distinguished by the basic elements in which the computation is decomposed. The four main models of practical importance are:

The quantum Turing machine is theoretically important but the direct implementation of this model is not pursued. All four models of computation have been shown to be equivalent; each can simulate the other with no more than polynomial overhead.

Physical realizations[edit]

For physically implementing a quantum computer, many different candidates are being pursued, among them (distinguished by the physical system used to realize the qubits):

A large number of candidates demonstrates that the topic, in spite of rapid progress, is still in its infancy. There is also a vast amount of flexibility.

Relation to computational complexity theory[edit]

Main article: Quantum complexity theoryThe suspected relationship of BQP to other problem spaces.[60]

The class of problems that can be efficiently solved by quantum computers is called BQP, for “bounded error, quantum, polynomial time”. Quantum computers only run probabilistic algorithms, so BQP on quantum computers is the counterpart of BPP (“bounded error, probabilistic, polynomial time”) on classical computers. It is defined as the set of problems solvable with a polynomial-time algorithm, whose probability of error is bounded away from one half.[61] A quantum computer is said to “solve” a problem if, for every instance, its answer will be right with high probability. If that solution runs in polynomial time, then that problem is in BQP.

BQP is contained in the complexity class #P (or more precisely in the associated class of decision problems P#P),[62] which is a subclass of PSPACE.

BQP is suspected to be disjoint from NP-complete and a strict superset of P, but that is not known. Both integer factorization and discrete log are in BQP. Both of these problems are NP problems suspected to be outside BPP, and hence outside P. Both are suspected to not be NP-complete. There is a common misconception that quantum computers can solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. That is not known to be true, and is generally suspected to be false.[62]

The capacity of a quantum computer to accelerate classical algorithms has rigid limits—upper bounds of quantum computation’s complexity. The overwhelming part of classical calculations cannot be accelerated on a quantum computer.[63] A similar fact prevails for particular computational tasks, like the search problem, for which Grover’s algorithm is optimal.[64]

Bohmian Mechanics is a non-local hidden variable interpretation of quantum mechanics. It has been shown that a non-local hidden variable quantum computer could implement a search of an N-item database at most in {\displaystyle O({\sqrt[{3}]{N}})}{\displaystyle O({\sqrt[{3}]{N}})} steps. This is slightly faster than the {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {N}})}O({\sqrt  {N}}) steps taken by Grover’s algorithm. Neither search method will allow quantum computers to solve NP-Complete problems in polynomial time.[65]

Although quantum computers may be faster than classical computers for some problem types, those described above cannot solve any problem that classical computers cannot already solve. A Turing machine can simulate these quantum computers, so such a quantum computer could never solve an undecidable problem like the halting problem. The existence of “standard” quantum computers does not disprove the Church–Turing thesis.[66] It has been speculated that theories of quantum gravity, such as M-theory or loop quantum gravity, may allow even faster computers to be built. Currently, defining computation in such theories is an open problem due to the problem of time, i.e., there currently exists no obvious way to describe what it means for an observer to submit input to a computer and later receive output.[67][68]

See also[edit]


  1. Jump up to:a b The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). Grumbling, Emily; Horowitz, Mark (eds.). Quantum Computing : Progress and Prospects (2018). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. p. I-5. doi:10.17226/25196ISBN 978-0-309-47969-1OCLC 1081001288.
  2. ^ Benioff, Paul (1980). “The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines”. Journal of Statistical Physics22 (5): 563–591. Bibcode:1980JSP….22..563Bdoi:10.1007/bf01011339.
  3. ^ Feynman, Richard (June 1982). “Simulating Physics with Computers” (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics21 (6/7): 467–488. Bibcode:1982IJTP…21..467Fdoi:10.1007/BF02650179. Retrieved 28 February 2019.
  4. ^ Manin, Yu. I. (1980). Vychislimoe i nevychislimoe [Computable and Noncomputable] (in Russian). Sov.Radio. pp. 13–15. Archived from the original on 2013-05-10. Retrieved 2013-03-04.
  5. ^ Mermin, David (March 28, 2006). “Breaking RSA Encryption with a Quantum Computer: Shor’s Factoring Algorithm” (PDF). Cornell University, Physics 481-681 Lecture Notes. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-11-15.
  6. ^ John Preskill (2018). “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond”. Quantum2: 79. arXiv:1801.00862doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79.
  7. ^ “On “Quantum Supremacy””IBM Research Blog. 2019-10-22. Retrieved 2020-01-21.
  8. ^ Aaronson, Scott (2019-10-30). “Opinion | Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters”The New York TimesISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-30.
  9. ^ Nielsen, Michael A.; Chuang, Isaac L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667ISBN 9780511976667.
  10. ^ Lenstra, Arjen K. (2000). “Integer Factoring” (PDF). Designs, Codes and Cryptography19 (2/3): 101–128. doi:10.1023/A:1008397921377. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2015-04-10.
  11. Jump up to:a b Daniel J. Bernstein, Introduction to Post-Quantum Cryptography. Introduction to Daniel J. Bernstein, Johannes Buchmann, Erik Dahmen (editors). Post-quantum cryptography. Springer, Berlin, 2009. ISBN 978-3-540-88701-0
  12. ^ See also pqcrypto.org, a bibliography maintained by Daniel J. Bernstein and Tanja Lange on cryptography not known to be broken by quantum computing.
  13. ^ Robert J. McEliece. “A public-key cryptosystem based on algebraic coding theory.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory DSN Progress Report 42–44, 114–116.
  14. ^ Kobayashi, H.; Gall, F.L. (2006). “Dihedral Hidden Subgroup Problem: A Survey”Information and Media Technologies1 (1): 178–185.
  15. ^ Bennett, C.H.; Bernstein, E.; Brassard, G.; Vazirani, U. (1997). “The strengths and weaknesses of quantum computation”SIAM Journal on Computing26 (5): 1510–1523. arXiv:quant-ph/9701001doi:10.1137/s0097539796300933.
  16. ^ “What are quantum computers and how do they work? WIRED explains”Wired UK. 2018-02-16.
  17. ^ Quantum Algorithm Zoo Archived 2018-04-29 at the Wayback Machine – Stephen Jordan’s Homepage
  18. ^ Jon Schiller, Phd (2009-06-19). Quantum ComputersISBN 9781439243497.
  19. ^ Ambainis, Andris (2005). “Quantum search algorithms”. arXiv:quant-ph/0504012.
  20. ^ Rich, Steven; Gellman, Barton (2014-02-01). “NSA seeks to build quantum computer that could crack most types of encryption”Washington Post.
  21. ^ Norton, Quinn (2007-02-15). “The Father of Quantum Computing”Wired.
  22. ^ Ambainis, Andris (Spring 2014). “What Can We Do with a Quantum Computer?”. Institute for Advanced Study.
  23. ^ Ambainis, Andris; Hassidim, Avinatan; Lloyd, Seth (2008). “Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations”. Physical Review Letters103 (15): 150502. arXiv:0811.3171doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502PMID 19905613.
  24. ^ Boixo, Sergio; Isakov, Sergei V.; Smelyanskiy, Vadim N.; Babbush, Ryan; Ding, Nan; Jiang, Zhang; Bremner, Michael J.; Martinis, John M.; Neven, Hartmut (2018). “Characterizing Quantum Supremacy in Near-Term Devices”. Nature Physics14(6): 595–600. arXiv:1608.00263doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0124-x.
  25. ^ Savage, Neil. “Quantum Computers Compete for “Supremacy””.
  26. ^ “Quantum Supremacy and Complexity”. 23 April 2016.
  27. ^ Kalai, Gil. “The Quantum Computer Puzzle” (PDF). AMS.
  28. ^ Arute, Frank; Arya, Kunal; Babbush, Ryan; Bacon, Dave; Bardin, Joseph C.; Barends, Rami; Biswas, Rupak; Boixo, Sergio; Brandao, Fernando G. S. L.; Buell, David A.; Burkett, Brian; Chen, Yu; Chen, Zijun; Chiaro, Ben; Collins, Roberto; Courtney, William; Dunsworsth, Andrew; Farhi, Edward; Foxen, Brooks; Fowler, Austin; Gidney, Craig; Giustina, Marissa; Graff, Rob; Guerin, Keith; Habegger, Steve; Harrigan, Matthew P.; Hartmann, Michael J.; Ho, Alan; Hoffman, Markus; Huang, Trent; Humble, Travis S.; Isakov, Sergei V.; Jeffery, Evan; Jiang, Zhang; Kafri, Dvir; Kechedzhi, Kostyantyn; Kelly, Julian; Klimov, Paul V.; Knysh, Sergey; Korotov, Alexander; Kostritsa, Fedor; Landhuis, David; Lindmark, Mike; Lucero, Erik; Lyakh, Dmitry; Mandrà, Salvatore; McClean, Jarrod R.; McEwen, Matthew; Megrant, Anthony; Mi, Xiao; Michielsen, Kristel; Mohseni, Masoud; Mutus, Josh; Naaman, Ofer; Neeley, Matthew; Neill, Charles; Niu, Murphy Yuezhen; Ostby, Eric; Petukhov, Andre; Platt, John C.; Quintana, Chris; Rieffel, Eleanor G.; Roushan, Pedram; Rubin, Nicholas C.; Sank, Daniel; Satzinger, Kevin J.; Smelyanskiy, Vadim; Sung, Kevin J.; Trevithick, Matthew D.; Vainsencher, Amit; Villalonga, Benjamin; White, Theodore; Yao, Z. Jamie; Yeh, Ping; Zalcman, Adam; Neven, Hartmut; Martinis, John M. (23 October 2019). “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor”. Nature574 (7779): 505–510. arXiv:1910.11333Bibcode:2019Natur.574..505Adoi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5PMID 31645734.
  29. ^ “Google researchers have reportedly achieved “quantum supremacy””MIT Technology Review.
  30. ^ Unruh, Bill (1995). “Maintaining coherence in Quantum Computers”. Physical Review A51 (2): 992–997. arXiv:hep-th/9406058Bibcode:1995PhRvA..51..992Udoi:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.992PMID 9911677.
  31. ^ Davies, Paul. “The implications of a holographic universe for quantum information science and the nature of physical law”(PDF). Macquarie University.
  32. ^ Dyakonov, Mikhail (2018-11-15). “The Case Against Quantum Computing”IEEE Spectrum.
  33. ^ DiVincenzo, David P. (2000-04-13). “The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation”. Fortschritte der Physik48 (9–11): 771–783. arXiv:quant-ph/0002077Bibcode:2000ForPh..48..771Ddoi:10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11<771::AID-PROP771>3.0.CO;2-E.
  34. ^ Tangermann, Victor (January 17, 2019). “Sourcing parts for quantum computers is near impossible right now”Futurism.
  35. ^ DiVincenzo, David P. (1995). “Quantum Computation”. Science270 (5234): 255–261. Bibcode:1995Sci…270..255DCiteSeerX (subscription required)
  36. ^ Jones, Nicola (19 June 2013). “Computing: The quantum company”. Nature498 (7454): 286–288. Bibcode:2013Natur.498..286Jdoi:10.1038/498286aPMID 23783610.
  37. ^ Amy, Matthew; Matteo, Olivia; Gheorghiu, Vlad; Mosca, Michele; Parent, Alex; Schanck, John (November 30, 2016). “Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3”. arXiv:1603.09383 [quant-ph].
  38. ^ Dyakonov, M. I. (2006-10-14). S. Luryi; J. Xu; A. Zaslavsky (eds.). “Is Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation Really Possible?”. Future Trends in Microelectronics. Up the Nano Creek: 4–18. arXiv:quant-ph/0610117Bibcode:2006quant.ph.10117D.
  39. ^ Freedman, Michael H.Kitaev, AlexeiLarsen, Michael J.; Wang, Zhenghan (2003). “Topological quantum computation”. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society40 (1): 31–38. arXiv:quant-ph/0101025doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-02-00964-3MR 1943131.
  40. ^ Monroe, Don (2008-10-01). “Anyons: The breakthrough quantum computing needs?”New Scientist.
  41. ^ Dyakonov, Mikhail. “The Case Against Quantum Computing”IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  42. ^ Das, A.; Chakrabarti, B. K. (2008). “Quantum Annealing and Analog Quantum Computation”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 (3): 1061–1081. arXiv:0801.2193Bibcode:2008RvMP…80.1061DCiteSeerX
  43. ^ Nayak, Chetan; Simon, Steven; Stern, Ady; Das Sarma, Sankar (2008). “Nonabelian Anyons and Quantum Computation”. Rev Mod Phys80 (3): 1083–1159. arXiv:0707.1889Bibcode:2008RvMP…80.1083Ndoi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083.
  44. ^ Clarke, John; Wilhelm, Frank (June 19, 2008). “Superconducting quantum bits”Nature453 (7198): 1031–1042. Bibcode:2008Natur.453.1031Cdoi:10.1038/nature07128PMID 18563154.
  45. ^ Kaminsky, William M (2004). “Scalable Superconducting Architecture for Adiabatic Quantum Computation”. arXiv:quant-ph/0403090.
  46. ^ Imamoğlu, Atac; Awschalom, D. D.; Burkard, Guido; DiVincenzo, D. P.; Loss, D.; Sherwin, M.; Small, A. (1999). “Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity-QED”Physical Review Letters83 (20): 4204–4207. arXiv:quant-ph/9904096Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83.4204Idoi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4204.
  47. ^ Fedichkin, Leonid; Yanchenko, Maxim; Valiev, Kamil (2000). “Novel coherent quantum bit using spatial quantization levels in semiconductor quantum dot”Quantum Computers and Computing1: 58–76. arXiv:quant-ph/0006097Bibcode:2000quant.ph..6097F. Archived from the original on 2011-08-18.
  48. ^ Bertoni, A.; Bordone, P.; Brunetti, R.; Jacoboni, C.; Reggiani, S. (2000-06-19). “Quantum Logic Gates based on Coherent Electron Transport in Quantum Wires” (PDF). Physical Review Letters84 (25): 5912–5915. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84.5912Bdoi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5912hdl:11380/303796PMID 10991086.
  49. ^ Ionicioiu, Radu; Amaratunga, Gehan; Udrea, Florin (2001-01-20). “Quantum Computation with Ballistic Electrons”. International Journal of Modern Physics B15 (2): 125–133. arXiv:quant-ph/0011051Bibcode:2001IJMPB..15..125Idoi:10.1142/s0217979201003521ISSN 0217-9792.
  50. ^ Ramamoorthy, A.; Bird, J. P.; Reno, J. L. (2007). “Using split-gate structures to explore the implementation of a coupled-electron-waveguide qubit scheme”. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter19 (27): 276205. Bibcode:2007JPCM…19A6205Rdoi:10.1088/0953-8984/19/27/276205ISSN 0953-8984.
  51. ^ Leuenberger, MN; Loss, D (Apr 12, 2001). “Quantum computing in molecular magnets”. Nature410 (6830): 789–93. arXiv:cond-mat/0011415Bibcode:2001Natur.410..789Ldoi:10.1038/35071024PMID 11298441.
  52. ^ Knill, G. J.; Laflamme, R.; Milburn, G. J. (2001). “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics”Nature409(6816): 46–52. Bibcode:2001Natur.409…46Kdoi:10.1038/35051009PMID 11343107.
  53. ^ Nizovtsev, A. P. (August 2005). “A quantum computer based on NV centers in diamond: Optically detected nutations of single electron and nuclear spins”Optics and Spectroscopy99 (2): 248–260. Bibcode:2005OptSp..99..233Ndoi:10.1134/1.2034610.
  54. ^ Gruener, Wolfgang (2007-06-01). “Research indicates diamonds could be key to quantum storage”. Archived from the originalon 2007-06-04. Retrieved 2007-06-04.
  55. ^ Neumann, P.; et al. (June 6, 2008). “Multipartite Entanglement Among Single Spins in Diamond”. Science320 (5881): 1326–1329. Bibcode:2008Sci…320.1326Ndoi:10.1126/science.1157233PMID 18535240.
  56. ^ Millman, Rene (2007-08-03). “Trapped atoms could advance quantum computing”. ITPro. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  57. ^ Ohlsson, N.; Mohan, R. K.; Kröll, S. (January 1, 2002). “Quantum computer hardware based on rare-earth-ion-doped inorganic crystals”. Opt. Commun201 (1–3): 71–77. Bibcode:2002OptCo.201…71Odoi:10.1016/S0030-4018(01)01666-2.
  58. ^ Longdell, J. J.; Sellars, M. J.; Manson, N. B. (September 23, 2004). “Demonstration of conditional quantum phase shift between ions in a solid”. Phys. Rev. Lett93 (13): 130503. arXiv:quant-ph/0404083Bibcode:2004PhRvL..93m0503Ldoi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.130503PMID 15524694.
  59. ^ Náfrádi, Bálint; Choucair, Mohammad; Dinse, Klaus-Peter; Forró, László (July 18, 2016). “Room Temperature manipulation of long lifetime spins in metallic-like carbon nanospheres”Nature Communications7: 12232. arXiv:1611.07690Bibcode:2016NatCo…712232Ndoi:10.1038/ncomms12232PMC 4960311PMID 27426851.
  60. ^ Nielsen, p. 42
  61. ^ Nielsen, p. 41
  62. Jump up to:a b Bernstein, Ethan; Vazirani, Umesh (1997). “Quantum Complexity Theory”SIAM Journal on Computing26 (5): 1411–1473. CiteSeerX
  63. ^ Ozhigov, Yuri (1999). “Quantum Computers Speed Up Classical with Probability Zero”. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals10 (10): 1707–1714. arXiv:quant-ph/9803064Bibcode:1998quant.ph..3064Odoi:10.1016/S0960-0779(98)00226-4.
  64. ^ Ozhigov, Yuri (1999). “Lower Bounds of Quantum Search for Extreme Point”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences455(1986): 2165–2172. arXiv:quant-ph/9806001Bibcode:1999RSPSA.455.2165Odoi:10.1098/rspa.1999.0397.
  65. ^ Aaronson, Scott. “Quantum Computing and Hidden Variables”(PDF).
  66. ^ Nielsen, p. 126
  67. ^ Scott Aaronson (2005). “NP-complete Problems and Physical Reality”. ACM SIGACT News2005arXiv:quant-ph/0502072Bibcode:2005quant.ph..2072A. See section 7 “Quantum Gravity”: “[…] to anyone who wants a test or benchmark for a favorite quantum gravity theory,[author’s footnote: That is, one without all the bother of making numerical predictions and comparing them to observation] let me humbly propose the following: can you define Quantum Gravity Polynomial-Time? […] until we can say what it means for a ‘user’ to specify an ‘input’ and ‘later’ receive an ‘output’—there is no such thing as computation, not even theoretically.” (emphasis in original)
  68. ^ “D-Wave Systems sells its first Quantum Computing System to Lockheed Martin Corporation”. D-Wave. 2011-05-25. Retrieved 2011-05-30.

Further reading[edit]

This further reading section may contain inappropriate or excessive suggestions. Please ensure that only a reasonable number of balanced, topical, reliable, and notable further reading suggestions are given. Consider utilising appropriate texts as inline sources or creating a separate bibliography article(May 2019)

External links[edit]

This article’s use of external links may not follow Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references(May 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Quantum computer.


showvteQuantum information science
showvteEmerging quantum technologies
showvteComputer science
showvteQuantum mechanics
Authority control BNEXX556504BNFcb135068781 (data)GND4533372-5LCCNsh98002795NDL01072652


Navigation menu




In other projects



Edit links


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s