Illustration: Christian Gralingen

Quantum computing is all the rage. It seems like hardly a day goes by without some news outlet describing the extraordinary things this technology promises. Most commentators forget, or just gloss over, the fact that people have been working on quantum computing for decadesand without any practical results to show for it.

Weve been told that quantum computers could provide breakthroughs in many disciplines, including materials and drug discovery, the optimization of complexsystems, and artificial intelligence. Weve been assured that quantum computers will forever alter our economic, industrial, academic, and societal landscape. Weve even been told that the encryption that protects the worlds most sensitive data may soon be broken by quantum computers. It has gotten to the point where many researchers in various fields of physics feel obliged to justify whatever work they are doing by claiming that it has some relevance to quantum computing.

Meanwhile, government research agencies, academic departments (many of them funded by government agencies), and corporate laboratories are spending billions of dollars a year developing quantum computers. On Wall Street, Morgan Stanley and other financial giants expect quantum computing to mature soon and are keen to figure out how this technology can help them.

Its become something of a self-perpetuating arms race, with many organizations seemingly staying in the race if only to avoid being left behind. Some of the worlds top technical talent, at places like Google, IBM, and Microsoft, are working hard, and with lavish resources in state-of-the-art laboratories, to realize their vision of a quantum-computing future.

In light of all this, its natural to wonder: When will useful quantum computers be constructed? The most optimistic experts estimate it will take 5to 10 years. More cautious ones predict 20 to 30 years. (Similar predictions have been voiced, by the way, for the last 20 years.) I belong to a tiny minority that answers, Not in the foreseeable future. Having spent decades conducting research in quantum and condensed-matter physics, Ive developed my very pessimistic view. Its based on an understanding of the gargantuan technical challenges that would have to be overcome to ever make quantum computing work.

The idea of quantum computing first appeared nearly 40 years ago, in 1980, when the Russian-born mathematician Yuri Manin, who now works at the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, in Bonn, first put forward the notion, albeit in a rather vague form. The concept really got on the map, though, the following year, when physicist Richard Feynman, at the California Institute of Technology, independently proposed it.

Realizing that computer simulations of quantum systems become impossible to carry out when the system under scrutiny gets too complicated, Feynman advanced the idea that the computer itself should operate in the quantum mode: Nature isnt classical, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of nature, youd better make it quantum mechanical, and by golly its a wonderful problem, because it doesnt look so easy, he opined. A few years later, University of Oxford physicist David Deutsch formally described a general-purpose quantum computer, a quantum analogue of the universal Turing machine.

The subject did not attract much attention, though, until 1994, when mathematician Peter Shor (then at Bell Laboratories and now at MIT) proposed an algorithm for an ideal quantum computer that would allow very large numbers to be factored much faster than could be done on a conventional computer. This outstanding theoretical result triggered an explosion of interest in quantum computing. Many thousands of research papers, mostly theoretical, have since been published on the subject, and they continue to come out at an increasing rate.

The basic idea of quantum computing is to store and process information in a way that is very different from what is done in conventional computers, which are based on classical physics. Boiling down the many details, its fair to say that conventional computers operate by manipulating a large number of tiny transistors working essentially as on-off switches, which change state between cycles of the computers clock.

The state of the classical computer at the start of any given clock cycle can therefore be described by a long sequence of bits corresponding physically to the states of individual transistors. With N transistors, there are 2N possible states for the computer to be in. Computation on such a machine fundamentally consists of switching some of its transistors between their on and off states, according to a prescribed program.

In quantum computing, the classical two-state circuit element (the transistor) is replaced by a quantum element called a quantum bit, or qubit. Like the conventional bit, it also has two basic states. Although a variety of physical objects could reasonably serve as quantum bits, the simplest thing to use is the electrons internal angular momentum, or spin, which has the peculiar quantum property of having only two possible projections on any coordinate axis: +1/2 or 1/2 (in units of the Planck constant). For whatever the chosen axis, you can denote the two basic quantum states of the electrons spin as and .

Heres where things get weird. With the quantum bit, those two states arent the only ones possible. Thats because the spin state of an electron is described by a quantum-mechanical wave function. And that function involves two complex numbers, and (called quantum amplitudes), which, being complex numbers, have real parts and imaginary parts. Those complex numbers, and , each have a certain magnitude, and according to the rules of quantum mechanics, their squared magnitudes must add up to 1.

Thats because those two squared magnitudes correspond to the probabilities for the spin of the electron to be in the basic states and when you measure it. And because those are the only outcomes possible, the two associated probabilities must add up to 1. For example, if the probability of finding the electron in the state is 0.6 (60percent), then the probability of finding it in the state must be 0.4 (40 percent)nothing else would make sense.

In contrast to a classical bit, which can only be in one of its two basic states, a qubit can be in any of a continuum of possible states, as defined by the values of the quantum amplitudes and . This property is often described by the rather mystical and intimidating statement that a qubit can exist simultaneously in both of its and states.

Yes, quantum mechanics often defies intuition. But this concept shouldnt be couched in such perplexing language. Instead, think of a vector positioned in the x-y plane and canted at 45degrees to the x-axis. Somebody might say that this vector simultaneously points in both the x- and y-directions. That statement is true in some sense, but its not really a useful description. Describing a qubit as being simultaneously in both and states is, in my view, similarly unhelpful. And yet, its become almost de rigueur for journalists to describe it as such.

In a system with two qubits, there are 22 or 4 basic states, which can be written (), (), (), and (). Naturally enough, the two qubits can be described by a quantum-mechanical wave function that involves four complex numbers. In the general case of N qubits, the state of the system is described by 2N complex numbers, which are restricted by the condition that their squared magnitudes must all add up to 1.

While a conventional computer with N bits at any given moment must be in one of its 2N possible states, the state of a quantum computer with N qubits is described by the values of the 2N quantum amplitudes, which are continuous parameters (ones that can take on any value, not just a 0 or a 1). This is the origin of the supposed power of the quantum computer, but it is also the reason for its great fragility and vulnerability.

How is information processed in such a machine? Thats done by applying certain kinds of transformationsdubbed quantum gatesthat change these parameters in a precise and controlled manner.

Experts estimate that the number of qubits needed for a useful quantum computer, one that could compete with your laptop in solving certain kinds of interesting problems, is between 1,000 and 100,000. So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be at least 21,000, which is to say about 10300. Thats a very big number indeed. How big? It is much, much greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.

To repeat: A useful quantum computer needs to process a set of continuous parameters that is larger than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.

At this point in a description of a possible future technology, a hardheaded engineer loses interest. But lets continue. In any real-world computer, you have to consider the effects of errors. In a conventional computer, those arise when one or more transistors are switched off when they are supposed to be switched on, or vice versa. This unwanted occurrence can be dealt with using relatively simple error-correction methods, which make use of some level of redundancy built into the hardware.

In contrast, its absolutely unimaginable how to keep errors under control for the 10300 continuous parameters that must be processed by a useful quantum computer. Yet quantum-computing theorists have succeeded in convincing the general public that this is feasible. Indeed, they claim that something called the threshold theorem proves it can be done. They point out that once the error per qubit per quantum gate is below a certain value, indefinitely long quantum computation becomes possible, at a cost of substantially increasing the number of qubits needed. With those extra qubits, they argue, you can handle errors by forming logical qubits using multiple physical qubits.

How many physical qubits would be required for each logical qubit? No one really knows, but estimates typically range from about 1,000 to 100,000. So the upshot is that a useful quantum computer now needs a million or more qubits. And the number of continuous parameters defining the state of this hypothetical quantum-computing machinewhich was already more than astronomical with 1,000 qubitsnow becomes even more ludicrous.

Even without considering these impossibly large numbers, its sobering that no one has yet figured out how to combine many physical qubits into a smaller number of logical qubits that can compute something useful. And its not like this hasnt long been a key goal.

In the early 2000s, at the request of the Advanced Research and Development Activity (a funding agency of the U.S. intelligence community that is now part of Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity), a team of distinguished experts in quantum information established a road map for quantum computing. It had a goal for 2012 that requires on the order of 50 physical qubits and exercises multiple logical qubits through the full range of operations required for fault-tolerant [quantum computation] in order to perform a simple instance of a relevant quantum algorithm. Its now the end of 2018, and that ability has still not been demonstrated.

The huge amount of scholarly literature thats been generated about quantum-computing is notably light on experimental studies describing actual hardware. The relatively few experiments that have been reported were extremely difficult to conduct, though, and must command respect and admiration.

The goal of such proof-of-principle experiments is to show the possibility of carrying out basic quantum operations and to demonstrate some elements of the quantum algorithms that have been devised. The number of qubits used for them is below 10, usually from 3 to 5. Apparently, going from 5 qubits to 50 (the goal set by the ARDA Experts Panel for the year 2012) presents experimental difficulties that are hard to overcome. Most probably they are related to the simple fact that 25 = 32, while 250 = 1,125,899,906,842,624.

By contrast, the theory of quantum computing does not appear to meet any substantial difficulties in dealing with millions of qubits. In studies of error rates, for example, various noise models are being considered. It has been proved (under certain assumptions) that errors generated by local noise can be corrected by carefully designed and very ingenious methods, involving, among other tricks, massive parallelism, with many thousands of gates applied simultaneously to different pairs of qubits and many thousands of measurements done simultaneously, too.

A decade and a half ago, ARDAs Experts Panel noted that it has been established, under certain assumptions, that if a threshold precision per gate operation could be achieved, quantum error correction would allow a quantum computer to compute indefinitely. Here, the key words are under certain assumptions. That panel of distinguished experts did not, however, address the question of whether these assumptions could ever be satisfied.

I argue that they cant. In the physical world, continuous quantities (be they voltages or the parameters defining quantum-mechanical wave functions) can be neither measured nor manipulated exactly. That is, no continuously variable quantity can be made to have an exact value, including zero. To a mathematician, this might sound absurd, but this is the unquestionable reality of the world we live in, as any engineer knows.

Sure, discrete quantities, like the number of students in a classroom or the number of transistors in the on state, can be known exactly. Not so for quantities that vary continuously. And this fact accounts for the great difference between a conventional digital computer and the hypothetical quantum computer.

Indeed, all of the assumptions that theorists make about the preparation of qubits into a given state, the operation of the quantum gates, the reliability of the measurements, and so forth, cannot be fulfilled exactly. They can only be approached with some limited precision. So, the real question is: What precision is required? With what exactitude must, say, the square root of 2 (an irrational number that enters into many of the relevant quantum operations) be experimentally realized? Should it be approximated as 1.41 or as 1.41421356237? Or is even more precision needed?There are no clear answers to these crucial questions.

While various strategies for building quantum computers are now being explored, an approach that many people consider the most promising, initially undertaken by the Canadian company D-Wave Systems and now being pursued by IBM, Google, Microsoft, and others, is based on using quantum systems of interconnected Josephson junctions cooled to very low temperatures (down to about 10 millikelvins).

The ultimate goal is to create a universal quantum computer, one that can beat conventional computers in factoring large numbers using Shors algorithm, performing database searches by a similarly famous quantum-computing algorithm that Lov Grover developed at Bell Laboratories in 1996, and other specialized applications that are suitable for quantum computers.

On the hardware front, advanced research is under way, with a 49-qubit chip (Intel), a 50-qubit chip (IBM), and a 72-qubit chip (Google) having recently been fabricated and studied. The eventual outcome of this activity is not entirely clear, especially because these companies have not revealed the details of their work.

While I believe that such experimental research is beneficial and may lead to a better understanding of complicated quantum systems, Im skeptical that these efforts will ever result in a practical quantum computer. Such a computer would have to be able to manipulateon a microscopic level and with enormous precisiona physical system characterized by an unimaginably huge set of parameters, each of which can take on a continuous range of values. 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.

I believe that, appearances to the contrary, the quantum computing fervor is nearing its end. Thats because a few decades is the maximum lifetime of any big bubble in technology or science. After a certain period, too many unfulfilled promises have been made, and anyone who has been following the topic starts to get annoyed by further announcements of impending breakthroughs. Whats more, by that time all the tenured faculty positions in the field are already occupied. The proponents have grown older and less zealous, while the younger generation seeks something completely new and more likely to succeed.

All these problems, as well as a few others Ive not mentioned here, raise serious doubts about the future of quantum computing. There is a tremendous gap between the rudimentary but very hard experiments that have been carried out with a few qubits and the extremely developed quantum-computing theory, which relies on manipulating thousands to millions of qubits to calculate anything useful. That gap is not likely to be closed anytime soon.

To my mind, quantum-computing researchers should still heed an admonition that IBM physicist Rolf Landauer made decades ago when the field heated up for the first time. He urged proponents of quantum computing to include in their publications a disclaimer along these lines: This scheme, like all other schemes for quantum computation, relies on speculative technology, does not in its current form take into account all possible sources of noise, unreliability and manufacturing error, and probably will not work.

Editors note: A sentence in this article originally stated that concerns over required precision were never even discussed. This sentence was changed on 30 November 2018 after some readers pointed out to the author instances in the literature that had considered these issues. The amended sentence now reads: There are no clear answers to these crucial questions.

Mikhail Dyakonov does research in theoretical physics at Charles Coulomb Laboratory at the University of Montpellier, in France. His name is attached to various physical phenomena, perhaps most famously Dyakonov surface waves.

Go here to read the rest:

The Case Against Quantum Computing – IEEE Spectrum

- Quantum computing is coming: Heres why we need to get our ... - March 23rd, 2019
- Quantum computing will break your encryption in a few ... - March 21st, 2019
- Microsoft has formed a coalition to promote quantum computing ... - March 19th, 2019
- Quantum computing for everyone | Michael Nielsen - March 12th, 2019
- Ask a Techspert: What is quantum computing? - blog.google - March 6th, 2019
- IBM hits quantum computing milestone, may see 'Quantum ... - March 6th, 2019
- Its Time You Learned About Quantum Computing | WIRED - March 6th, 2019
- Microsofts quantum computing network takes a giant leap ... - March 2nd, 2019
- When Will Quantum Computing Have Real Commercial Value ... - February 25th, 2019
- How Does Quantum Computing Work? - ExtremeTech - January 31st, 2019
- Quantum technology - Wikipedia - January 23rd, 2019
- CES 2019: IBM's Q System One Is the Rock Star Quantum ... - January 13th, 2019
- Quantum Computing | The MIT Press - January 11th, 2019
- IBM thinks outside of the lab, puts quantum computer in a box - January 11th, 2019
- IBM unveils its first commercial quantum computer - January 9th, 2019
- A new type of quantum computer has smashed every record ... - December 21st, 2018
- China bet big on quantum computing. Now the US races to ... - October 26th, 2018
- US takes first step toward a quantum computing workforce ... - September 17th, 2018
- China bet big on quantum computing. Now the ... - money.cnn.com - September 17th, 2018
- The reality of quantum computing could be just three years ... - September 12th, 2018
- The quantum computing race the US cant afford to lose - September 3rd, 2018
- Quantum Computing | USRA - August 30th, 2018
- What Is Quantum Computing? The Complete WIRED Guide | WIRED - August 22nd, 2018
- Quantum Computing Market Research Report- Forecast 2022 | MRFR - August 1st, 2018
- Two Quantum Computing Bills Are Coming To Congress - July 5th, 2018
- Senate bills would make quantum computing a priority - June 10th, 2018
- What is quantum computing? - Definition from WhatIs.com - February 5th, 2018
- The Era of Quantum Computing Is Here. Outlook: Cloudy ... - January 26th, 2018
- IBM puts its quantum computer to work in relaxing, nerdy ASMR ... - January 8th, 2018
- Quantum computing is going to change the world. Here's what ... - January 8th, 2018
- Is Quantum Computing an Existential Threat to Blockchain ... - December 25th, 2017
- What is Quantum Computing? | SAP News Center - December 23rd, 2017
- Quantum Computing Explained | What is Quantum Computing? - December 21st, 2017
- New silicon structure opens the gate to quantum computers - December 14th, 2017
- Microsoft offers developers a preview of its quantum ... - December 12th, 2017
- Quantum Computing Is the Next Big Security Risk | WIRED - December 8th, 2017
- Yale Professors Race Google and IBM to the First Quantum ... - November 16th, 2017
- IBM's processor pushes quantum computing ... - engadget.com - November 16th, 2017
- Quantum computing - news.microsoft.com - November 1st, 2017
- Intel Takes First Steps To Universal Quantum Computing - October 13th, 2017
- Qudits: The Real Future of Quantum Computing? - IEEE Spectrum - October 13th, 2017
- quantum computing - engadget.com - October 13th, 2017
- Quantum Computing | Intel Newsroom - October 13th, 2017
- What will you actually use quantum computing for? | ZDNet - October 11th, 2017
- Here's what quantum computing is and why it matters - October 6th, 2017
- Microsoft just upped its multi-million bet on quantum computing - ZDNet - September 7th, 2017
- Microsoft's Aussie quantum computing lab set to scale up next-gen ... - ARNnet - September 7th, 2017
- An Entirely New Type of Quantum Computing Has Just Been Invented - Futurism - September 7th, 2017
- Quantum computing event explores the implications for business - Cambridge Network - August 30th, 2017
- Quantum Computing Is Coming at Us Fast, So Here's Everything You Need to Know - ScienceAlert - August 27th, 2017
- How quantum mechanics can change computing - San Francisco ... - San Francisco Chronicle - August 25th, 2017
- Commonwealth Bank investing in Australia's first quantum computer company - Which-50 (blog) - August 25th, 2017
- How quantum mechanics can change computing - The Conversation US - August 23rd, 2017
- Introducing Australia's first quantum computing hardware company - Computerworld Australia - August 23rd, 2017
- IEEE Approves Standards Project for Quantum Computing ... - insideHPC - August 23rd, 2017
- $495.3 Million Quantum Computing Market 2017 by Revenue Source, Application, Industry, and Geography - Global ... - PR Newswire (press release) - August 18th, 2017
- Physicists Have Made Exotic Quantum States From Light - Futurism - August 16th, 2017
- Machine learning tackles quantum error correction - Phys.Org - August 15th, 2017
- Quantum Internet Is 13 Years Away. Wait, What's Quantum Internet? - WIRED - August 15th, 2017
- Blind quantum computing for everyone - Phys.org - Phys.Org - August 12th, 2017
- Quantum Computing Is Real, and D-Wave Just Open ... - WIRED - August 12th, 2017
- Quantum Computing Market Worth 495.3 Million USD by 2023 | 08 ... - Markets Insider - August 10th, 2017
- China uses a quantum satellite to transmit potentially unhackable data - CNBC - August 10th, 2017
- Physicists Take Big Step Towards Quantum Computing and ... - Universe Today - August 1st, 2017
- Why you might trust a quantum computer with secretseven over ... - Phys.Org - July 12th, 2017
- Quantum-computer node uses two different ion species - physicsworld.com - July 10th, 2017
- Quantum Computers vs Bitcoin How Worried Should We Be? - The Merkle - July 10th, 2017
- Quantum cheques could be a forgery-free way to move money - New Scientist - July 10th, 2017
- Technique for measuring and controlling electron state is a ... - UCLA Newsroom - July 9th, 2017
- Quantum Computers Made Even More Powerful with New microchip generating 'Qudits' - TrendinTech - July 8th, 2017
- Quantum Computing Record Broken - Wall Street Pit - July 8th, 2017
- Alkermes and IBM's quantum computing. Who'll be the big winner? Malcolm Berko - Durham Herald Sun - July 6th, 2017
- Qudits: The Real Future of Quantum Computing? - IEEE Spectrum - IEEE Spectrum - July 1st, 2017
- Google to Achieve "Supremacy" in Quantum Computing by the End of 2017 - Big Think - July 1st, 2017
- Quantum Computing Becomes More Accessible - Scientific American - July 1st, 2017
- Tektronix AWG Pulls Test into Era of Quantum Computing - Electronic Design - June 2nd, 2017
- Toward mass-producible quantum computers | MIT News - MIT News - June 2nd, 2017
- Purdue, Microsoft Partner On Quantum Computing Research | WBAA - WBAA - June 2nd, 2017
- IBM boosts power of quantum computing processors as it lays ... - www.computing.co.uk - May 22nd, 2017
- IBM makes leap in quantum computing power - ITworld - May 22nd, 2017

## Recent Comments