Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

How Quantum Computers are Already Untangling Nature's Mysteries (wired.co.uk) 36

Posted by EditorDavid from the qubit-by-qubit dept.
Wired published a long extract from Amit Katwala's book Quantum Computing: How It Works and How It Could Change the World — explaining how it's already being put to use to explore some of science's biggest secrets by simulating nature itelf: Some of the world's top scientists are engaged in a frantic race to find new battery technologies that can replace lithium-ion with something cleaner, cheaper and more plentiful. Quantum computers could be their secret weapon... Although we've known all the equations we need to simulate chemistry since the 1930s, we've never had the computing power available to do it...

In January 2020, researchers at IBM published an early glimpse of how quantum computers could be useful in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computing era. Working with the German car manufacturer Daimler on improving batteries for electric vehicles, they used a small-scale quantum computer to simulate the behaviour of three molecules containing lithium, which could be used in the next generation of lithium-sulphur batteries that promise to be more powerful and cheaper than today's power cells..
Some other examples:
  • "Chemistry challenges just waiting for a quantum computer powerful and reliable enough to crack them range from the extraction of metals by catalysis through to carbon dioxide fixation, which could be used to capture emissions and slow climate change. But the one with the potential for the biggest impact might be fertiliser production... Some plants rely on bacteria which use an enzyme called nitrogenase to 'fix' nitrogen from the atmosphere and incorporate it into ammonia. Understanding how this enzyme works would be an important step towards...creating less energy-intensive synthetic fertilisers."
  • "Solar panels are another area where quantum computers could help, by accelerating the search for new materials. This approach could also help to identify new materials for batteries, and superconductors that work at room temperature, which would drive advances in motors, magnets and perhaps even quantum computers themselves...."
  • "Quantum computing could help scientists model complex interactions and processes in the body, enabling the discovery of new treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer's, or a quicker understanding of new diseases such as Covid-19. Artificial intelligence is already being used by companies such as DeepMind to gain insight into protein folding — a key facet of growth and disease — and quantum computers will accelerate this effort."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Quantum Computers are Already Untangling Nature's Mysteries More

How Quantum Computers are Already Untangling Nature's Mysteries

Comments Filter:

  • Nope (Score:5, Informative)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday June 21, 2021 @06:28AM (#61506000)

    QCs are _still_ much slower than much cheaper conventional computers if you use the best algorithms for each technology. And that will remain the case for a long time yet, and possibly forever. Hence there is absolutely _nothing_ that QCs are good for at this time, except separating fools from their money. Also note the excessive use of "could" in the article. In this context "could" = "maybe, maybe not, but certainly not anytime soon".

    • Mod up. Plenty of spare cycles on conventional supercomputers. Update me when error correction uses less electricity than actual computing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        The point of using quantum computers to simulate real world systems is that you don't need error correction. Your mitochondria aren't error corrected, are they?

        The silly insistence on human trivialities like reading the other guy's mail distracts discussions of quantum computing from actual useful, achievable goals like quantum chemistry.

      • a response that starts with "nope."

        It is a rude response to something that merits a detailed explanation.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      The word cloud is used twice, both in the context of simply making the QCs available for work on demand via the internet (hey look it's the definition of cloud). Are you drunk?

    • Also note the excessive use of "could" in the article

      Old man yelling at "coulds."

    • Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)

      by JustinOpinion ( 1246824 ) on Monday June 21, 2021 @10:30AM (#61506514)
      The underlying point TFA is trying to make (though not necessarily making it well) is that there is one class of problems for which quantum computers are already better than classical computers: simulating the behavior of small quantum systems.

      You are right that current QCs are still too small (and have too high an error rate) to implement any of the "quantum supremacy" algorithms that people dream about (like breaking cryptography). It will be a long time still before those are ready for realistic use. However, many scientists are actively studying quantum mechanics, and simulating such systems on conventional computers is extremely computationally expensive, owing to the complex non-classical correlations that underlie quantum effects (superposition, entanglement, etc.). There are rigorous theories/proofs showing how the effects go beyond the classical.

      So the idea is to use a quantum computer to simulate a quantum system. You get all these "quantum correlations" for free. Of course you may consider this "cheating". It starts to sound less like quantum computing and more like doing a physical experiment that is highly analogous (rigorously analogous) to the experiment you are trying to understand. And you are limited to rather small systems. But, at least, this points to some interesting near-term goals for quantum computing folks to work on: how to make these systems better and better at simulating larger-and-larger quantum systems.

      • The underlying point TFA is trying to make (though not necessarily making it well) is that there is one class of problems for which quantum computers are already better than classical computers: simulating the behavior of small quantum systems.

        This reminds me of my undergrad numerical methods class that was taught by a old professor who admitted that he didn't know anything about programming. However, he was an expert in analog computing devices. So, one of our projects for that class was writing a simulator for an op amp integrator. Obviously, the actual circuit was orders of magnitude faster than the simulator.

      • Unfortunately, they aren't even good at that. Maybe someday they'll get there, but not yet. Quantum computers are noisy. They give inaccurate results. Worse, we don't really understand the ways they're inaccurate. The types of inaccuracy might even be different for each model of computer.

        Conventional algorithms for simulating quantum systems are well understood. We know how accurate they are. We know what approximations they use. We know what types of errors they tend to make. We have a toolbox of

        • Unfortunately, they aren't even good at that. Maybe someday they'll get there, but not yet. Quantum computers are noisy. They give inaccurate results. Worse, we don't really understand the ways they're inaccurate. The types of inaccuracy might even be different for each model of computer.

          Conventional algorithms for simulating quantum systems are well understood. We know how accurate they are. We know what approximations they use. We know what types of errors they tend to make. We have a toolbox of different algorithms that make different speed/accuracy tradeoffs so you can make the best choice for your particular problem.

          With a quantum computer you get an answer, but you don't know how accurate it is or what kinds of errors it's likely to have. If you need a better answer, it may not be obvious how to get it. And often, the quantum computer isn't even faster than a conventional algorithm that gives similar accuracy.

          Assuming that the models aren't being used to predict a bridge failure point or similar kinds of untestable safety critical infrastructure or equipment, being inaccurate in a different way is quite possibly more of a double edged sword rather than a damning reason not to use them. For example, if you're using simulation as a quick way to iterate through possible solutions and flag the more promising ones for actual physical experimentation, using multiple different simulation processes could help to escape

    • So a research institute that wants to research implementation and application of quantum computers is a fool, or run by fools?

      Ah ha ...

      (Your claim is wrong anyway)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        There are lots of "fools" in science. But actually, they are doing it for the research-grants and these are often not tied to reality in their goals. Hence researchers see themselves forced to make unrealistic claims. I feel that the field of Quantum Computing is overstepping the boundaries of what is still ethically acceptable in their claims though.

        And no, my claim is not wrong. The difference between us may be that I have followed this research field for about 30 years now.

    • Quantum computing could help scientists model complex interactions

      "And monkeys could fly out of my butt."

  • Could, might, waiting for... (Score:5, Informative)

    by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Monday June 21, 2021 @06:31AM (#61506002)
    Good, grief the very title Quantum Computing: How It Works and How It Could Change the World tells you it's a work of speculative fiction. In the past it would have been Fusion Power: How It Works and How It Could Change the World or Faster-then-light Travel: How It Works and How It Could Change the World or Telekinesis: How It Works and How It Could Change the World or, if you're that way inclined, Yogic Flying: How It Works and How It Could Change the World. Show me one thing that quantum computing has actually achieved that isn't a specially-crafted artificial problem and that couldn't have been achieved with much less effort with a standard computer.
    • Exactly. I have not seen a special class of problems that can only be solved by quantum computers and which cannot be solved by binary computers - faster and more cost effectively.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Sure you have: chemistry.

        You *can* do chemistry simulations on a classical computer, but you have to make a lot of simplifications and assumptions, and it really doesn't work well for anything but the easiest problems.

        Right now we use quantum computers that are a bit awkward for the purpose. You have to basically build one specifically for the reaction you want to simulate. Many of them are sloppy and some smell bad and/or are prone to exploding. Since you have to construct a new one for each variation of t

        • Right now we use quantum computers that are a bit awkward for the purpose. You have to basically build one specifically for the reaction you want to simulate. Many of them are sloppy and some smell bad and/or are prone to exploding. Since you have to construct a new one for each variation of the experiment it can be slow, although we've built robots to help speed it up. But chemists would love a general purpose quantum computer that could at least decrease their search space while at the same time not stinking up the lab. Especially organic chemists.

          That took me way to long to get, and when I did I instantly regretted posting elsewhere in the discussion and losing my ability to drop a mod point on you.

    • meh (Score:3)

      by Thud457 ( 234763 )
      The world market for quantum computing is at most 7 q*berts. That's all you need to solve for 42. Anything more is just a global waste of resources.
      • But a single Coily could destroy all of the q*berts. We need a reserve supply, or a way to be rid of that pesky bouncing snake!

    • ITT: People who do not understand the concept of "research".

    • So I suppose we should make you head of all science budgets, since you know which technologies will pan out and which ones wonâ(TM)t? Quantum computing and even fusion energy is advancing, not in giant leaps but little steps. Every year they make advances towards that goal. Science will eventually crack fusion energy and quantum computing but it may take a few decades, maybe even a century. But then people were getting ridiculed by folks like you for trying to build flying machines for hundreds of year

    • Google is your friend.

  • I love how quantum computing makes modern computing (based on the integrated circuit) look like dinosaurs, but then I realize I I'd still like to learn a lot more about how the IC works.

  • all horse poo

  • In just about every article I see about QC, I see this phrase "How It Could Change the World ". Rarely, if ever, so I see anything along this lines of "thanks to QC, we have solved a previously unsolvable problem".

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      You may want to switch from reading publications about leading edge science to those about scientific history.

      For example, the story of how mechanical and electronic computing machines were developed, solved previously unsolvable problems, and changed the world is fascinating.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close