Comments on: My visit to D-Wave: Beyond the roast-beef sandwich

By: Google & NASA Acquire D-Wave Quantum Computer | Future Leap

Google & NASA Acquire D-Wave Quantum Computer | Future Leap — Sat, 18 May 2013 01:20:01 +0000

[...] the “quantum-ness” of D-Wave’s machines has been called into question, it seems that the landscape of opinion is shifting more towards confidence in D-Wave’s [...]

By: The CIA invests in Canadian company’s quantum computer | Sync™ Blog

The CIA invests in Canadian company’s quantum computer | Sync™ Blog — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:24:11 +0000

[...] as a roast-beef sandwich.” He’s since visited D-Wave and, while now less sceptical, is still not entirely convinced. And in 2010, an article entitled D-Wave Does Not Quantum Compute in IEEE Spectrum claimed that [...]

By: Order from Quantum Discord | Wavewatching

Order from Quantum Discord | Wavewatching — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 04:01:38 +0000

[...] Although their erstwhile fiercest critic Scot Aaronson has made peace with them, he expressed that he still would like to see a measure for the degree of entanglement that they achieve on their [...]

By: Analog VLSI for Neural Networks – A Cautious Tale for Adiabatic Quantum Computing | Wavewatching

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:54:43 +0000

[...] medical applications, but so far there is no obvious market niche for adiabatic quantum computing. Scott Aaranson argued that the "coolness" of quantum computing will sell machines. While this label has some [...]

By: Commercial Quantum Computer? « Tomi Engdahl’s ePanorama blog

Commercial Quantum Computer? « Tomi Engdahl’s ePanorama blog — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:57:10 +0000

[...] Slashdot article D-Wave Announces Commercially Available Quantum Computer comments tell that this has the same central problem as before. D-Wave’s computers haven’t demonstrated that their commercial bits are entangled. There’s no way to really distinguish what they are doing from essentially classical simulated annealing. Recommended reading that is skeptical of D-Wave’s claims is much of what Scott Aaronson has wrote about them. See for example http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639, http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=198 although interestingly after he visited D-Wave’s labs in person his views changed slightly and became slightly more sympathetic to them http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954. [...]

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:26:09 +0000

If they do the test to determine if the system is behaving as a quantum computer and the test fails, *then* they go out of business. It is a dysfunctional business model. As long as they don’t know for sure that it isn’t a quantum computer then they’re not committing fraud by claiming that it is one.

They’re afraid to do the test not because of the resources, but because they’re worried about what the answer might be.

By: John Sidles

John Sidles — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:43:02 +0000

I have posted to Gödel's Lost Letter reasoned arguments to the effect that Scott's recent IEEE Spectrum essay, when read carefully, contains within it the essential elements of a viable QIST Roadmap 3.0.

By: Berg

Berg — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:47:18 +0000

Scott, suppose P = NP were to be proved tomorrow(any time between now and 1 year from now or so) how would this whole discussion evolve and where would D-wave stand? Specifically, say the issue was resolved with a constructive algorithm that had a cost that was less than or equal to O(n^3) complexity – Could we program a computer to find an “algorithm by which a quantum computer with no entanglement can get a speedup over a classical computer”? In general, how would a practical algorithm that proves P = NP affect the progress of QC? Outside of academia, would QC even really be desired at that point? Thanks, I’m writing a paper.

By: Chris W.

Chris W. — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:20:11 +0000

Slightly off-topic: See this post on Technology Review's Physics arXiv Blog, to which I was pointed by a coworker: Quantum Biology and the Puzzle of Coherence

Kauffman and co say a similar kind of critical transition occurs as quantum systems switch to a chaotic regime. Here the distinction between chaotic behaviour and ordinary quantum behaviour disappears. And in these conditions, quantum coherence suddenly changes from the fragile, blink-and-you-miss-it regime to a much more robust long-lived phenomenon. It is in this state, say Kauffman and co, that the observed processes of quantum biology must take place. They even demonstrate this by simulating the improved coherence of the light harvesting complexes involved in photosynthesis. "It is very likely that biological systems use this mechanism," they say.

By: John Sidles

John Sidles — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 23:52:52 +0000

Scott, the lively debate between Aram Harrow and Gil Kalai on Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP would become even livelier if Scott Aaronson were contributing more substantially. In particular, in recent weeks I've been looting the tombs of the algebraic geometry literature for concrete examples of sure/Shor separators and intend to post more on this topic. It would be terrific if the inventor of this concept would contribute … because irrespective of whether you and I agree or not on any particular topic, I always have a high regard for your imagination. Summary: Things are quiet here, so why not stir things up there?