Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of quantum computing and communication

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This page offers a good insight into the development of quantum computing. However, there's quite a bit missing, especially in terms of recent developments - too much has happened in the last 10 years or so, in order to be able to provide a good overview by merely dividing by year. Too many events, often not related to each other, get put into a single long paragraph. From point onward (1995 for example), I suggest sorting milestones by month of the year.

Another suggestion, as quantum computing is such a multi-disciplinary field, would be to divide developments into their respective disciplines. For example, developments in theory (e.g. error correction), could be separated from experimental ones (e.g. multiple qubit entanglement). I'm not suggesting a separate timeline (that would detract from the idea that quantum computing unifies many fields), just maybe a more intuitive subdivision than the monthly one I suggested above.

In any case, this page has a lot of potential, but as it stands, I don't think it has the scalability, and more importantly the readability it deserves. In case there are no objections, I'll try to reorganize it. Tomatoman 20:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized the obvious solution that was escaping me - for every year just have all the developments bullet-pointed in chronological order. Will get this done as soon as I've got a moment. Tomatoman 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many entries in 2005 and 2006. Many of these are just theoretical proposals and their merit is still unclear. I think this page should only include acknowledged milestones. --J S Lundeen 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit too long. I would also suggest sub-dividing it. In fact, I would suggest having 2 separate articles for theoretical and experimental developments. There is no temporal connection between the two. Research in theory progresses at a rate independent of that in practical implementations of QC. Moreover, this classification makes it clear to the reader that some things mentioned have actually been done in a lab, and others are ideas or theorems. --Robin (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Robin's suggestion. As it stands, the page is just a chronological list of articles/papers, many of which appear to have little if any link to quantum computing. The theory-experiment split may make it a bit clearer what is and isn't acceptable. I'd go through it myself, but I'm a bit harsh when it comes to separating junk science from real science, e.g. 2008 would be down to maybe 4 items, probably fewer. --Ndickson (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go ahead and split it (maybe after waiting for more opinions?). It's easier to prune the list by keeping only the most notable events on the list and then adding more (after citing proof of notability), as opposed to deleting things that don't belong here. I don't know much about the experimental developments, but I'll clean up the theory article once you're done. There are some important theoretical advancements that aren't listed here. --Robin (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any opinions on the proposed split? Any recommendations for names of the two articles? --Robin (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

(I'm adding an RfC here, since this article is absolutely abysmal and has been for years. It needs a near-complete rewrite, since it's just a gigantic list of external articles about quantum computing, not a description of milestones in quantum computing as the title indicates. I've been unable to find outside parties to look at the article or my proposed criteria for a rewrite below, and my attempt to start cleaning up the page a while back was reverted without explanation. The article keeps growing worse as time goes on, and this can't continue. Please help. Ndickson (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I've been sitting on this for a long time, since I can't be considered completely neutral on this topic, but something really needs to be done. As such, I propose the following criteria for removing listed items from the page, and if people can agree on the criteria, I'll try my best to make the necessary overhaul in a neutral way. A goal should be to have few enough items left that they are worth describing in at least a couple of sentences on the page.

  • As this is "quantum computing" and not "quantum theory", all items not related to computing should be removed, e.g. observations of quantum effects alone are not relevant.
  • As this is "quantum computing" and not "classical computing", all items that are not specific to quantum effects should be removed, e.g. a CNOT gate by itself is just a 2-bit classical gate, even though it's commonly examined in the context of quantum computers.
  • I didn't see many items on the often-misidentified "quantum communication", but those should be removed too, unless they are communication in the context of quantum computation.
  • All items of speculative physicality should be removed. If there's no evidence that a described device or algorithm can be built/implemented in the next 10 years (from now, i.e. before 2020), it cannot yet be known to be of significance, unless it represents a dramatic change in direction for the field. Claims of being able to predict 10 years in the future are outrageous.
  • All items of speculative usability should be removed. Same thing as the previous, except in terms of its ability to be used in/by a quantum computer in the next 10 years.
  • All items examining no more than single qubits should be removed, unless it is the first to ever examine a qubit or examining a qubit in a medium not previously believed to behave like a qubit. This is because almost all nanoscopic objects or superconducting devices can be made to behave in a manner characteristic of a qubit given the right setup.
  • Since this is a timeline, not a collection of miscellaneous ideas or information about quantum computing, all items that are simply a description of ideas or information should be removed, especially if the ideas or information were known before the posted date.
  • All items that claim firsts after other previous claims of firsts that supercede the latter claims should be removed, unless there is legitimate dispute as to which was first, which should be described.
  • This should be an article of milestones, so all items that may or may not claim firsts but are clearly not firsts should be removed and, if applicable, replaced by items that do represent related firsts.
  • Any articles cited should be the original source, not paraphrased, rebranded, sometimes editorialized re-reports.

I'll add more criteria if I've missed anything. Please let me know what you think about these. Ndickson (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of your points. Some minor quibbles: If an experiment is cited in the media, it would be nice to have the original paper(s) and media citations. CNOT is a quantum gate. I would think it's a milestone when they implemented that for the first time, but I'm no experimentalist. Also, as I said before, I think we should split this article into one that covers implementation or implementation-related results, and another one which covers theoretical results (like Holevo's theorem, teleportation and superdense coding, Shor's algorithm, etc.). --Robin (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Robin. I agree with your point about citing both original paper(s) and media citations; I just didn't describe what I meant very well. I was referring to things like "Google Demonstrates Quantum Algorithm Promising Superfast Search" citing a decidedly flaky re-report on PopSci.com instead of the original article on the Google Research Blog, which is clearer and more correct while still being directed at a general audience. I also agree that CNOT is a quantum gate, but only in the sense that classical gates are quantum gates that don't require quantum effects. One output of CNOT is the XOR of the two inputs, and the other output is just one of the two inputs, both of which can be implemented easily with transistors and wires. As such, if only CNOTs in one basis are used, it's not relevant. If CNOT and Hadamard gates are used, it's possibly relevant. I agree with the split too, though it may be easier as a first step to split the page into two sections instead of jumping right to two separate articles. Ndickson (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, even the title "Google Demonstrates Quantum Algorithm Promising Superfast Search" is false according to the original article, since they're not promising anything, they don't claim to know whether it's a quantum algorithm that was demonstrated, and they don't claim that search will be "Superfast", haha. Ndickson (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, feel free to split the article into two parts and/or prune the article severely. --Robin (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Similar: Do we really have to repeat claims by D-wave that everyone knows are hyped up and not legit. Or should they be presented with appropriate counter-claims?

Let us the TIMELINE OF QUANTUM COMPUTING to us :) make your own page with HISTORY OF QUANTUM COMPUTING :) simple. — Roier (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Feynman 1981

[edit]

"However, instead of viewing this intractability as an obstacle, Feynman regarded it as an opportunity. He pointed out that if it requires that much computation to work out what will happen in a multi-particle interference experiment, then the very act of setting up such an experiment and measuring the outcome is equivalent to performing a complex computation."

Does the information contained in the above quotation not appear in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics article describing his talk? I just read the paper, have it in front of me, and was looking for any mention of Feynman viewing this as an opportunity. What I found is section 4: QUANTUM COMPUTERS -- UNIVERSAL QUANTUM SIMULATORS. There he does not talk about how setting up this experiment is equivalent to performing a complex computation; he restricts his view of a quantum computer to a machine capable of simulating physical laws. Am I wrong? Does the idea of measurement being equivalent to complex computation show up somewhere in this paper, or does it do so elsewhere? Ruberik 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble with my citating the Oct 4 06 article. Could you help?

Reverse-chronological order

[edit]

Shouldn’t this be in reverse-chronological order?! Can I go ahead and change it? --V4vijayakumar 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree. Today was my first visit to this page and I immediately perceived this to be in the wrong chronological order. Most recent events should be on top. They will generally be of more interest to visitors, and certainly to return visitors looking for the latest news. If there are no dissenting views, I would suggest this change be implemented. Gavin (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree: the later in the timeline, the more irrelevant and arbitrary become the entries. But I agree that it would be helpful to simplify navigation to more recent years (the table of contents is too long for that), so that one can immediately jump to any year of interest; I've tried out the horizontal version of TOC, which looks like an improvement to me. --Qcomp (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair --Roier 20:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006

[edit]

is fact that just the previous year takes up almost half the timeline a reflection of acceleration of progress?--87.65.167.243 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yesNicoli nicolivich 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partially, but there's definitely a lot of spam in there. Most of the events are just headlines that have been copied and pasted. I mean, come on! There's no way "Electrons interacting with individual dopant atoms in silicon observed, a step to silicon based quantum computers." or "Entire history of single photon observed." or "New material proposed for quantum computing." belong there, at least not in that kind of wording. We really need an expert to (1)weed out the junk and (2) explain this stuff more meaningfully. Tcamps42 04:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, but when I check these sources they all conform to the development of quantum computers and so are fit into the timeline. However, I tought of the idea of renaming the article from 'Timeline of quantum computing' into 'Timeline of development in quantum computing.' The reason because the whole article is only pointing out events in development. Reallife quantum computers have not been realised up to this time of writing. ;)
Kind Regards, --MisteryX 07:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted most of the developments here. I sort of flagged off when the page was flagged in May 2010 as not being properly formatted, so 2010 is coming in noticably short. The years from 2007 on get a bit shorter each year, too. Perhaps the low hanging fruit has been picked? I would like this page to be properly formatted by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.24.42 (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the article isn't "properly formatted", it's that it's not a valid timeline of milestones in quantum computing. It's just a gigantic list of articles/papers, many of which have nothing to do with quantum computing, and a vast vast majority of which are not milestones. Many of the items appear to even directly duplicate results from earlier in the list. I mostly fixed 2010 and started fixing 2009, but someone just reverted it. Is there any way this issue can be pushed up the chain of editing command? Ndickson (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source?

[edit]

It looks like a partly c/p from thocp - quantum computers

Quantum time bomb

[edit]

"2002 - 11th UK conference on the Foundations of Physics, the Philosophy Centre, University of Oxford, September 9 - 13 sees the exposition of the theory of the Quantum Time Bomb."

The theory of what? I don't know anything about quantum computing, normal bits are quite enough for me thanks, but this theory sounds like it's part of Quantum bogodynamics, and I think it just broke my bogon meter. Many of the very few hits I get on Google are about something called "Harry Potter and the Quantum Time Bomb"[1]. Is this really something serious and notable or just a joke? -- Coffee2theorems 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with quantum computing and I haven't heard of "Quantum Time Bomb". It's certainly not notable nearly the same degree as the other things listed for 2000-2004 and it may even be a joke. I'm removing it. If anyone puts it back, they should provide an explanation. Andris 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Ingarden

[edit]

Link to Roman Ingarden in this article is improper - the physycist involved was a son of Roman Ingarden, namely Roman Stanisław Ingarden. There isn't an article about him on English wiki however. See: pl:Roman Stanisław Ingarden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.124.165 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for comment

[edit]

Hi Ndickson, I'm not an expert on quantum computing, but happy to give my two cents.

I tried looking in the history to see which of your changes were reverted, but got somewhat confused. Could you be more specific? Have you tried contacting the editor who reverted them, so we can get their view on the article?

Personally, I think the timeline seems to start off quite well, and then degenerates after 2005 into a list of 6-word-statements. For example "Superior qubit material devised" doesn't seem to tell me very much. I think it would be better to include fewer significant developments (it's up to you experts to decide which are significant), with a bit more information on each - at least a complete sentence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that researchers in quantum computing are working on many different implementation ideas, which are currently all lumped together in the timeline. How about making the article into a table, like Timeline_of_artificial_intelligence, still in chronological order but with an extra "field" column, which says "NMR", "quantum dot", "theoretical", "algorithm" etc?

This article is lucky to have a lot of contributors, the problem is that they currently seem to be pulling it in different directions. I don't feel qualified to agree or disagree with your proposed criteria, but they look like a good place to start. Once a talk-page consensus has been reached on what should go in the article, we could make this clear to readers by adding a lead paragraph which says what the timeline aims to include.

Hope some of that is helpful --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having a separate field. Perhaps we could split it up into different tables instead of having one large table and several fields? That might allow more coarse grouping as well. For example, we could have a section called "implementations" which would have subsections like "NMR" and "quantum dots." Another section could be "theory," which could have subsections like "cryptography" and "algorithms." --Robin (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a possibility, theory vs implementations is a logical split. On the other hand, the more tables it's split into, the more we lose its timeline-ness: it's quite fun to see an idea proposed, and then scroll down a few years and see how it was first implemented. Or maybe some entries should appear in both tables: for example, how should we sort "In December, Ignacio Cirac, at University of Castilla-La Mancha at Ciudad Real, and Peter Zoller at the University of Innsbruck proposed an experimental realization of the controlled-NOT gate with trapped ions." - theory, or ion-trap?
Whichever we choose, I think we should use a sortable table like here to give people the chance to sort by field.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I'd pretty much lost hope a week after the RfC, so I'm glad to see someone saw it. I tried contacting the person who reverted the changes, but they didn't reply and haven't weighed in here on the discussion page.
My guess as to how this page ended up like this and how there are so many contributers is that people involved with research efforts indirectly related to quantum computing, or friends thereof, wanted to promote their work by adding it to the list. As such, edits to remove those items from the list would probably be guarded by at least one such person. Many independent people contribute, but they're independently contributing toward the same non-neutral end.
Until either people adding material are so immediately disgusted with the article that they feel guilty adding to it, or there's a sufficient group on the discussion page willing to slog through the ton of editing & maintaining required, I don't know how much we can do. Is there a way to start the editing in incremental steps that won't put people off? I like the idea of having a lead paragraph clarifying what should and shouldn't go on the page, but we probably need a critical mass of people to agree on it. Ndickson (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching this page, and I support a cleanup. Go ahead and make some incremental changes, and let's see if they are reverted. Since everyone on this talk page supports cleaning up the page and trimming down the list, I think we have consensus, which means we can revert their reverts and direct them to the talk page for discussion. --Robin (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with Ndickson. Many of the later posts are simply vanity -- people wanting to advertise their own work. Can we cut it back to real and crucial advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.19.1 (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Quantum Computer takes polynomial time to solve problems

[edit]

What about QIC = PSPACE? This has been proven. It seems to imply that interactive quantum computers are no faster than conventional computers. Isn't that important enough to be included? ( See http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4737v2.pdf ) 50.0.36.23 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Good for Straight Forward Understanding of Advances

[edit]

Without clear categorization of advances tracked through time, how can one get any meaning out of the article?

For example, tracking the maximum number of quantum bits in a single entanglement according to date would be much more meaningful than the current listing of ad hoc, haphazard, and arbitrary "achievements".

Also comparing the number of quantum bits needed for various types of tasks such as breaking encryption would be very informative in comparison to current accomplishments, because it would expose how little progress we have really made.

A great example of this would be to show how many quantum bits the D-Wave machines achieve in individual entanglements. This would expose the misguided impressions generated when D-Wave talks about the number of quantum bits on a single board as that has almost nothing to do with the number of quantum bits achieved in a individual entanglements. 50.0.36.35 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another advance

[edit]

Both types of error simultaneously detected http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/46725.wss Could someone post this? New chip architecture may increase qubits in a future quantum computer http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-chip-architecture-may-increase-qubits-in-a-future-quantum-computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.178.102 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading short descriptions

[edit]

I understand that is hard to give a comprehensive overview of such an active field for a general audience, but the "2000s" section of the article in its current form is seriously misleading. Many of the bullet points are shortened to the point where the text isn't in any relation to the importance of the referenced publication anymore. For example, the 2009 section states "Optical frequency comb devised" – an experimental technique for which (among other things) Hänsch and Hall shared the Nobel prize for Physics back in 2004! Another example from that year is the bullet point "Quantum entanglement demonstrated over 240 micrometrers". This misses the point entirely. Entanglement between qubits separated much further than that had been demonstrated before that, for example in Moehring et al., "Entanglement of single-atom quantum bits at a distance", doi:10.1038/nature06118 (2007). What made this a top-tier publication is the fact that they entangled the states of mechanical oscillators (ions moving in a "static" potential), which had not previously been done. Yet another example is the statement "Decoherence suppressed" in the 2011 list, while a paper showing decoherence-free subspaces has been published in Science 291, 2001 – that's ten years earlier, and I would guess there are even earlier publications out there that would fit the summary.

I could go on and on, but I suppose I've made my point. This article needs a thorough revision by somebody in the quantum computing/quantum optics field. In it's current form, it's quite useless as a quick summary and thoroughly misleading. This might also be a good opportunity to replace cited news articles with the actual primary sources where appropriate. Since readers who don't have a background in quantum optics or a related field might not know what the correct interpretation of many statements is, I've added the "Misleading" template to the page.

Of course, there is also the question of how to give a fair overview of developments a field with many "competing" developments. That's a question to tackle on another day, though. Let's make the page usable as it is first. In that regard, it might be better to refrain from adding new articles unless one feels comfortable summarizing them in a way that puts them into context. --Clickingban (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Should the first item on Wiesner be listed as 1960s not 1960?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of quantum computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Timeline of quantum computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet structure

[edit]

Hello,

The structure of each item is inconsistent: some mention the teams or companies, while most do not. I have no particular opinion on that point, but believe that each should be treated the same. What do you think? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 13:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Timeline of quantum computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup needed

[edit]

This page seems well sorted and balanced in its first few years. Later, in particular around 2010, it seems to be mostly a review of press releases, citing without categorizing some claims that are in fact exaggerated. What does "superior material for quantum computing" mean given that there are many different platforms with several different material demands (just as an example)? This can also be linked to the observation that in the end, hardly any entry references another Wikipedia article - really important developments should make it into Wikipedia, should they not?

Given that in various paths of the world, people have written reviews and roadmaps on the field, a rewrite along those (removing some purported breakthroughs that are largely media stunts) lines with better linking to other quantum computing articles should be in order. I would be happy to engage in this - what do other think?

FW-M Quantum (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this and with the critique by @Ndickson: from a few years ago. I would propose to get some consensus of what belongs here (i.e.,
  • when does a result of quantum physics or quantum information belong to the "quantum computing" timeline (does q crypto belong here? does q communication? does quantum software/algorithms? what about a confirmation of q Darwinism in q dot array (just because q dots also are a proposed implementation)? or "optical trapping of ions"?)
  • what characterizes a "milestone"? (does (non-conclusive) "evidence for a Moore-Read state at nu=5/2 really qualify? do how many "n qubits demonstrated" records should be included per implementation?
  • is there any point in mentioning the month/day of the milestone?
  • what's the criterion for mentioning the author/group/company by name?
  • present tense or past tense?
I think the list should be highly selective. To be included, it should represent a major advance on a specified route towards a quantum computer. I would try to categorize each entry (e.g., into the main implementation approaches trapped ions, cold neutral atoms, photons, superconducting circuits, spin qubits, hybrids/transducers, non-standard implementations, software/algorithms) and organize them in a table that is sorted by date but can also be sorted by date within each category (adding theory/exp or certain sub-categories (like: spin qubits:quantum dots, spin qubits:NV center; or cold atoms:optical lattice, cold atoms:Rydberg, cold atoms:cavity-QED) might be an option, if one can find suitably clear, but still fairly broad distinctions). Regarding the date, I think the year is enough. I'm unsure about the names/affiliations (for the early breakthroughs, the names of the researcher are appropriate, in the later many-authors-papers, I would find the group/institution/company more informative, but if one decides not to put any name, it may reduce the publicity spam in the list. --Qcomp (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of quantum computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested article improvements

[edit]

Hello! I'd like to propose a few improvements to this Wikipedia article. But first, a disclosure, which is also displayed in the connected contributor template above: I am submitting this request on behalf of Intel via Interfuse Communications, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Given my conflict of interest, I'm seeking volunteer editors to review and implement the proposed content appropriately, and I will not edit the article directly. The five suggestions are outlined below.

17-qubit superconducting test chip

[edit]

Currently, the "2017" section includes "Intel develops a 17-qubit chip". However, the inline citation directs readers to an Intel press release, which I understand is not acceptable for Wikipedia. I propose replacing this bullet point with the following, which offers slightly more detail and provides appropriate sourcing:

Intel confirmed development of a 17-qubit superconducting test chip in October 2017.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Bort, Julie (October 10, 2017). "Intel just challenged IBM and Google in a type of supercomputing that uses temperatures 250 times colder than deep space". Business Insider. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  2. ^ Knight, Will (October 10, 2017). "Quantum Inside: Intel Manufactures an Exotic New Chip". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  3. ^ Coldewey, Devin (October 10, 2017). "Intel moves towards production quantum computing with new 17-qubit chip". TechCrunch. Retrieved July 5, 2018.

If acceptable, editors are welcome to use the following markup for updating the article:

Markup

* Intel confirmed development of a 17-qubit superconducting test chip in October 2017.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bort |first1=Julie |title=Intel just challenged IBM and Google in a type of supercomputing that uses temperatures 250 times colder than deep space |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-just-challenged-ibm-for-the-future-of-quantum-computing-2017-10 |accessdate=July 5, 2018 |work=Business Insider |date=October 10, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Knight |first1=Will |title=Quantum Inside: Intel Manufactures an Exotic New Chip |journal=MIT Technology Review |date=October 10, 2017 |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609094/quantum-inside-intel-manufactures-an-exotic-new-chip/ |accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Coldewey |first1=Devin |title=Intel moves towards production quantum computing with new 17-qubit chip |url=https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/10/intel-moves-towards-production-quantum-computing-with-new-17-qubit-chip/ |accessdate=July 5, 2018 |work=TechCrunch |date=October 10, 2017}}</ref>

49-qubit superconducting test chip

[edit]

Currently, the "2018" section includes "Intel announces a new 49-qubit quantum chip". Same as above, the inline citation used to verify the claim directs readers to an Intel press release. I propose replacing the bullet point with the following, which offers more a bit more detail as well as appropriate secondary coverage:

Intel confirmed development of a 49-qubit superconducting test chip, called "Tangle Lake",[1] in January 2018.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Hsu, Jeremy (January 9, 2018). "CES 2018: Intel's 49-Qubit Chip Shoots for Quantum Supremacy". Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  2. ^ Bauer, Meredith Rutland (January 9, 2018). "CES 2018: Intel gives glimpse into mind-blowing future of computing". Fox News. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  3. ^ Captain, Sean (January 9, 2018). "Intel's New Chip Aims for Quantum Supremacy". Fast Company. Retrieved July 5, 2018.

If acceptable, feel free to use the following markup:

Markup

* Intel confirmed development of a 49-qubit superconducting test chip, called "Tangle Lake",<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hsu |first1=Jeremy |title=CES 2018: Intel's 49-Qubit Chip Shoots for Quantum Supremacy |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/intels-49qubit-chip-aims-for-quantum-supremacy |publisher=[[Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]] |accessdate=July 5, 2018 |date=January 9, 2018}}</ref> in January 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bauer |first1=Meredith Rutland |title=CES 2018: Intel gives glimpse into mind-blowing future of computing |url=http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/01/09/ces-2018-intel-gives-glimpse-into-mind-blowing-future-computing.html |accessdate=July 5, 2018 |publisher=Fox News |date=January 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Captain |first1=Sean |title=Intel's New Chip Aims for Quantum Supremacy |journal=Fast Company |date=January 9, 2018 |url=https://www.fastcompany.com/40514189/intel-new-chip-aims-for-quantum-supremacy |accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Proposed additions

[edit]

In addition to the above two content replacements, I propose adding the following three major developments to the timeline:

  • Intel invested $50 million in quantum computing research and development in 2015 as part of a ten-year collaboration with Delft University of Technology's QuTech institute.[1][2]
  • Intel successfully invents spin qubit fabrication flow on its 300 mm process technology using isotopically pure silicon wafers and QuTech successfully tests 2-qubit spin-based processor in February 2018.[3][4][5]
  • Intel begins testing silicon-based spin qubit processor, manufactured in the company's D1D Fab in Oregon, in June 2018.[6]

References

  1. ^ Wenz, John (September 3, 2015). "Intel Is Investing Big in Quantum Computing". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  2. ^ Clark, Don (September 3, 2015). "Intel to Invest $50 Million in Quantum Computers". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  3. ^ Mandelbaum, Ryan F. (February 14, 2018). "New Silicon Chip-Based Quantum Computer Passes Major Test". Gizmodo. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  4. ^ Giles, Martin (February 15, 2018). "Old-fashioned silicon might be the key to building ubiquitous quantum computers". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  5. ^ Kennedy, John (January 9, 2018). "Intel reveals quantum computing breakthrough at CES 2018". Silicon Republic. Retrieved July 16, 2018.
  6. ^ Forrest, Conner (June 12, 2018). "Why Intel's smallest spin qubit chip could be a turning point in quantum computing". TechRepublic. Retrieved July 12, 2018.

The first claim would be added to the 2015 section, and the latter two to the 2018 section. Each major development has received sufficient secondary coverage, and these claims are similar to those in the timeline about IBM and other institutions. If acceptable, feel free to copy and paste the following markup:

Markup

* {{Fontcolor|green|Intel invested $50 million in quantum computing research and development in 2015 as part of a ten-year collaboration with [[Delft University of Technology]]'s QuTech institute.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wenz |first1=John |title=Intel Is Investing Big in Quantum Computing |journal=Popular Mechanics |date=September 3, 2015 |url=https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/news/a17195/intels-investing-big-in-quantum-computing/ |accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Clark |first1=Don |title=Intel to Invest $50 Million in Quantum Computers |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-to-invest-50-million-in-quantum-computers-1441307006 |accessdate=July 5, 2018 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=September 3, 2015}}</ref>}}

* {{Fontcolor|green|Intel successfully invents spin qubit fabrication flow on its 300 mm process technology using isotopically pure silicon wafers and QuTech successfully tests 2-qubit spin-based processor in February 2018.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mandelbaum |first1=Ryan F. |title=New Silicon Chip-Based Quantum Computer Passes Major Test |url=https://gizmodo.com/new-silicon-chip-based-quantum-computer-passes-major-te-1822996512 |website=Gizmodo |accessdate=July 5, 2018 |date=February 14, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Giles |first1=Martin |title=Old-fashioned silicon might be the key to building ubiquitous quantum computers |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610273/old-fashioned-silicon-might-be-the-key-to-building-ubiquitous-quantum-computers/ |accessdate=July 5, 2018 |work=MIT Technology Review |date=February 15, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kennedy |first1=John |title=Intel reveals quantum computing breakthrough at CES 2018 |url=https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/quantum-computing-intel-ces-tangle-lake |accessdate=July 16, 2018 |work=Silicon Republic |date=January 9, 2018}}</ref>}}

* {{Fontcolor|green|Intel begins testing silicon-based spin qubit processor, manufactured in the company's D1D Fab in Oregon, in June 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Forrest |first1=Conner |title=Why Intel's smallest spin qubit chip could be a turning point in quantum computing |url=https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-intels-smallest-spin-qubit-chip-could-be-a-turning-point-in-quantum-computing/ |accessdate=July 12, 2018 |work=TechRepublic |date=June 12, 2018}}</ref>}}

Thanks for considering these improvements and updates. Again, I'm looking for editors to review and implement the claims appropriately, and I'm happy to address them one at a time, if needed. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcomp: Hello! I see you've edited this article recently, and have an interest in physics. Since no one has replied to this request so far, I wonder if you might be willing to take a look at the proposed changes and offer any feedback. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Inkian Jason:, thanks for your suggestions. I've updated the references and added most of the suggestions. I picked always what I considered the best reference, since using 3 for every item on this huge list seems excessive, and the main content was almost the same. The Feb 2018 references talked mostly about the QuTech result; so I only added this and nothing about the "spin qubit fabrication flow", with which I'm not familiar. (PS: while I've occasionally edited this list, I find it a bit pointless: except for the early years it's a jumble of small, big, impressive, over-sold results, far from being complete and without well-defined criteria for inclusion. E.g., the triple-photons of Feb 2018 is a very nice result - but a milestone towards a quantum computer?) --Qcomp (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcomp: Thanks for your assistance. I will take a look at the updates made to the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feynman 1959: does it belong here?

[edit]

There is actually no mention of using quantum effects for computation in the 1959 lecture; it only talks explicitly about miniaturizing computers. Later, in an unrelated section (that does not talk about computing) he says: "Atoms on a small scale behave like nothing on a large scale, for they satisfy the laws of quantum mechanics. So, as we go down and fiddle around with the atoms down there, we are working with different laws and can expect to do different things. We can manufacture in different ways. We can use not just circuits but some system involving the quantized energy levels, or the interaction of quantized spins." Isn't this a bit too vague and unspecific to put it here among contributions like those of Wiesner, Holevo, Ingarden that are very explicit about using QM for information processing? I would find it more appropriate to remove the entry. --Qcomp (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed that entry accordingly. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about the part regarding the energy levels was used by the others as the base of their work? Are we really sure even they do not recognize Feynman work as seminal? Seems to me that revoking this status from a paper requires more than just two opinions on a Wikipedia talk page. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 06:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being on a Wikipedia timeline full of miscellaneous cruft and over-promoted sales talk is not really a great "status" to be revoked. And "the energy levels are quantized" is just basic quantum mechanics, not discovered by Feynman in the first place and known to everybody in physics well before him. His work in the '80s is relevant to this page; his talk from 1959 isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ibm quantum experience

[edit]

quantum computer in a cloud. first publicly accessible quantum computer. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/how-ibms-new-five-qubit-universal-quantum-computer-works/ 213.149.61.222 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IonQ Computing - Announces 160/79-qubit machine

[edit]

I ran across this press release from IonQ Computing dated December 11, 2018 [1], which says "On measures of capacity, accuracy and other key benchmarks, IonQ’s system has surpassed all the other quantum computers in the market. It has stored 160 qubits and performed operations on 79 qubits, a record. Its gate fidelity—a measure of the accuracy of logical operations—is greater than 98% for both one-qubit and two-qubit operations on average in a 13-qubit configuration. This means it can handle longer calculations than other commercial quantum computers." This seems to be a noteworthy advance worth including in the 2018 timeline. I have no association with the company.

I'm thinking of the following phrasing: "IonQ Computing announces 160-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer - it can store 160 qubits, but only execute gates on 79 of the qubits."

Any objections, comments, or changes? If someone else would do all the actual edits, especially the Reference linking, that would be great. Thanks.

JackKrupansky (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ionq.co/news/december-11-2018

Rigetti Computing - Announces intentions to introduce a 128-qubit machine within a year

[edit]

I ran across this Medium post which is a pseudo press release from Rigetti Computing dated August 8, 2018 [1] which says "Today we’re sharing more details on our plans to build and deploy a 128-qubit system over the next 12 months, and our investment in resources at the application layer to encourage experimentation on our quantum computers." This seems noteworthy and worthy of inclusion in this timeline. AFAICT, this was their first public comment on this effort, although there was a very brief, passing mention in a Bloomberg news article [2] dated August 7, 2018. I have no association with the company.

I propose the following phrasing: "Rigetti Computing announces intention to build a 128-qubit superconducting quantum computer within twelve months."

Any objections, comments, or changes? If someone else would do all the actual edits, especially the Reference linking, that would be great. Thanks.

JackKrupansky (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://medium.com/rigetti/the-rigetti-128-qubit-chip-and-what-it-means-for-quantum-df757d1b71ea
  2. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/quantum-computers-today-aren-t-very-useful-that-could-change

D-Wave Systems unveils roadmap for its 5,000-qubit quantum computer (quantum annealing system)

[edit]

I ran across this tech news story dated February 27, 2019 which covers an announcement by D-Wave Systems of the roadmap for their next generation quantum computer which will have "over 5,000" qubits[1][2]. Granted, the D-Wave systems are specialized quantum annealing systems rather than being truly general-purpose quantum computers with universal gate sets, but this is still a notable advance. I have no association with the company.

I propose the following phrasing: "D-Wave Systems announces roadmap for introduction of a quantum annealing system with over 5,000 qubits. There remains dispute over whether a machine which specializes on quantum annealing should be considered in the same category as general-purpose quantum computers since it lacks a universal gate set, but the lack of firm, standardized terminology allows them to call this a quantum computer for now or at least a quantum computing system or quantum computing platform. At least they are not claiming that it is a general-purpose or universal quantum computer."

Any objections, comments, or changes? If someone else would do all the actual edits, especially the Reference linking, that would be great. Thanks.

JackKrupansky (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://venturebeat.com/2019/02/27/d-wave-previews-quantum-computing-platform-with-over-5000-qubits/
  2. ^ https://www.apnews.com/Globe%20Newswire/e24f2521eb62a6abd6371e2983c2ce0a

IBM Says Company Achieved Highest Quantum Volume to Date

[edit]

I read a new article about IBM quantum computers [1]. It mentions that ″Today, IBM has unveiled a new milestone on its quantum computing road map, achieving the company’s highest Quantum Volume to date, according to a company statement. Combining a series of new software and hardware techniques to improve overall performance, IBM has upgraded one of it’s newest 27-qubit client-deployed systems to achieve a quantum volume 64. The company has made a total of 28 quantum computers available over the last four years.″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpluto (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://thequantumdaily.com/2020/08/20/ibm-says-company-achieved-highest-quantum-volume-to-date/

Amr Fahmy

[edit]

The first entry in 1997 is "David Cory, Amr Fahmy and Timothy Havel, and at the same time..." Here Amr Fahmy is linked to a Egyptian football administrator not to a scientist, I guess this link is wrong and an extra article Amr Fahmy (scientist) is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.131.68.229 (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, good catch! I removed the wikilink. The Amr Fahmy of interest for quantum computing is presumably the same as the one in this profile [2], who does not appear likely to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability of academics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihisa Yamamoto and K. Igeta propose the first physical realization of a quantum computer

[edit]

Is it normal that such an apparently important paper (wich seems to be a redacted form of a comference) has so few citations? Mirad1000 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubayet Hossain (Omi)" self-promo spam

[edit]

Beware: Based on these now-reverted edits, it seems the same person from Talk:Google_ATAP#Resume_for_Engineer_Rubayet_Hossain_(Omi) is attempting their same gambit on this article. They use various anonymous IP accounts to attempt to insert self-promotion linking themselves to quantum computing, and they are long-term very persistent, retrying every few months. Their edits cite (unreliable) sources to avoid appearing as blatant vandalism, but the sources never actually mention the named individual. Cybercobra (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_quantum_computing_and_communication&oldid=1224857107"