Tag: quantum science

  • Google and XPRIZE launch $5m prize to find actual uses for quantum computers

    Google and XPRIZE launch $5m prize to find actual uses for quantum computers

    [ad_1]

    Can quantum computers be useful?

    Eric Lukero/Google

    Google and XPRIZE are launching a $5 million competition to find practical uses for quantum computers that could actually benefit society. We already know that quantum computers can perform specific tasks faster than classical computers, after Google first claimed quantum advantage for its Sycamore processor in 2019. However, these demonstration tasks are simple benchmarks with no real-world applications.

    “There’s a lot of rather abstract mathematical problems where we can prove quantum computers give very, very large speed-ups,” says Ryan Babbush at Google. “But a lot of the research community has been less focused on trying to match those more abstract quantum speed-ups to specific real-world applications, and to try to figure out how quantum computers could be used.”

    To that end, Google and the XPRIZE Foundation are urging researchers to come up with new quantum algorithms as part of a three-year competition. The winning algorithms could solve an existing problem, like finding a new battery electrolyte that vastly improves storage capacity, but it doesn’t need to solve the problem in practice, says Babbush. Instead, researchers just need to show how an algorithm could be applied, detailing the exact quantum computing specifications required. Alternatively, competitors could show how an existing quantum algorithm could be applied to a real-world problem not previously considered.


    The prize will judge entrants’ algorithms on a range of criteria, such as how large their impact could be, whether they tackle problems similar to those outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and how feasibly they can be run on machines that are available now or in the near-future.

    A total prize fund of $5 million will be split into a grand prize of $3 million shared between up to three winners, $1 million shared between at most five runners-up and $50,000 for each of 20 semi-finalists.

    The prize could help shift the focus of quantum computing researchers from looking at technical definitions of quantum advantage, like those demonstrated by Google or IBM, to real-world uses, says Nicolás Quesada at Montreal Polytechnic in Canada. “[The prize is] hitting the nail on the head that this is a very important problem,” says Quesada. “We need to figure out what to do with a quantum computer.”

    However, finding socially beneficial quantum algorithms will require a better understanding of how quantum computers work, such as how to deal with noise and errors, says Bill Fefferman at the University of Chicago. The prize doesn’t address this foundational aspect of building quantum computers, he says.

    “I’m very optimistic, in principle, that we’ll find algorithms that are really useful,” Fefferman. “I’m not as optimistic that, in the next three years, we’ll be able to discover those algorithms and then also implement them on the current hardware that will exist.”

    Topics:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why string theory has been unfairly maligned – and how to test it

    Why string theory has been unfairly maligned – and how to test it

    [ad_1]

    New Scientist Default Image

    WHEN Joseph Conlon was an undergraduate in the early 2000s, he avoided popular science accounts of string theory because he wanted to engage with it on a technical level, without preconceptions. It was a few years after the “second string theory revolution”, when theoretical physicists felt they might be about to crack open the deepest workings of reality, perhaps even deliver a theory of everything. As he explored the maths, Conlon was captivated.

    String theory famously suggests that everything is made up of one-dimensional strings (see “String theory: A primer”, below), and also predicts a huge array of possible universes – some 10500, for those taking notes. Whatever you think about that, it is fair to say that string theory hasn’t generated the testable predictions that many were hoping for. Today, it has a reputation for being untestable, maybe even unscientific. One arch string theory critic dubbed it “not even wrong”.

    But for Conlon, now a physicist at the University of Oxford, the thrill never faded. String theory remains a potential route to uniting the incompatible ways we think about gravity and the quantum world, he argues, to create a unified theory of quantum gravity. He also claims that his field has been unfairly maligned, and that its detractors are applying double standards. He even insists that string theory does make predictions that we could conceivably probe with upcoming astronomical observations.

    Here, Conlon tells New Scientist about the enduring joys of string theory, why it is too early to write it off, and why we…

    [ad_2]

    Source link