It really looks like they are trying hard to scale a system that is simply explained away by a simpler model... From TFA:
The switching behavior they see could just be an electron hopping on and off a quantum dot, perhaps one formed incidentally by part of the wirelike region, Legg says. “This is exactly what you could get from a quantum dot.”
I won't pretend I have a deep understanding of any of this, so the only parameters I can judge is the consensus of people that do, and these people aren't too happy about the claims being made.
My prediction would be that it won't become mainstream.
Even if it will be practically possible to build quantum computers for average users (given they currently rely on complex physical experiments, one can doubt that), there's the question of whether there's a need for "mainstream" quantum computing.
As has often been said, quantum computers aren't some magical thing that makes every computation faster. They are faster at some very specific problems like breaking cryptography (I doubt that there's a mass market for decrypting the old WIFI traffic you stored from your neighbor, and, these days, most internet traffic is already pq safe) and simulating physics (also probably not something average joe wants to do every day).
In all likelihood, quantum computers will be specialized devices used, e.g., by scientists. You may be able to rent your quantum computing time if that gets cheap enough to be practical, but I doubt many people will ever own one.
It really looks like they are trying hard to scale a system that is simply explained away by a simpler model... From TFA:
I won't pretend I have a deep understanding of any of this, so the only parameters I can judge is the consensus of people that do, and these people aren't too happy about the claims being made.When quantum computing becomes mainstream, what will be the first standard programming language? I wonder what the 'C' of quantum computers will be
My prediction would be that it won't become mainstream.
Even if it will be practically possible to build quantum computers for average users (given they currently rely on complex physical experiments, one can doubt that), there's the question of whether there's a need for "mainstream" quantum computing.
As has often been said, quantum computers aren't some magical thing that makes every computation faster. They are faster at some very specific problems like breaking cryptography (I doubt that there's a mass market for decrypting the old WIFI traffic you stored from your neighbor, and, these days, most internet traffic is already pq safe) and simulating physics (also probably not something average joe wants to do every day).
In all likelihood, quantum computers will be specialized devices used, e.g., by scientists. You may be able to rent your quantum computing time if that gets cheap enough to be practical, but I doubt many people will ever own one.
Multiple Python based DSLs, just like now with GPU programming.
I don't know, but you'll be able to write Fortran in it.
It can't become mainstream, it is a very narrowly specialized hardware for a very limited set of tasks.
Q# is what Microsoft are offering. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/qsharp-overv...
I feel they should call it Q.
No joke, MS's offering for this is Q# "Q-sharp"
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/qsharp-overv...
> You have 1 remaining free news stories.
> [Continue]
> You have reached your limit of 3 free news stories.
That's modern internet for you.