Quantum Circuit Composition General

Share your research or questions/answers regarding composing circuits for quantum computers, and general discussions about the topic here. >Principles of Quantum Computing https://cnot.io/quantum_computing/ https://strawberryfields.ai/photonics/ >Getting started from home https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/ https://docs.aws.amazon.com/braket/(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

Why don't you start with posting something interesting yourself?

>>38854 Great and totally not redundant reply here.

>>38846 My paper just got rejected from IEEE Quantum Week 2024 ( https://qce.quantum.ieee.org/2024/ ). They mostly criticized various details (some stuff was fair, some not so much IMO), but the underlying message was that my contributions weren't that interesting, which makes sense since this was my first dive ever into quantum stuff (or academic writing for that matter--I was helped a lot by my supervisor but I can't help but feel that I needed even more help). I kind of don't want to get into the details as that might end up being a self-dox, but the paper was about a Grover's search algorithm circuit. Grover's algorithm is actually pretty interesting. It gives a quadratic "speedup" over traditional algorithms and can be used to solve any problem where you search for solutions among a list of candidates. That's quite a general formulation, isn't it? That's why you can apply grover for lots of stuff. The nice part is that once you get the initialization/diffusion steps out of the way (there are several standardized circuits for this) you don't have to worry about any complex quantum fuarrrkery: you just have to write a circuit (called an oracle) with not/and gates that maps any input to 1 or 0 depending on whether it's a valid solution or not. Except, quantum circuits need to be reversible, which spices things up a bit. What I like about it is how it's really simple logic at the end of the day, and you don't need to use or understand complex quantum physics ideas. Grover's algorithm is fun.

>>38846 quantum is evil technology and should not be explored. realistically we'd be okay with 80s computers, but no you technophiles always need fuarrrking more power. and for what even at this point?

Has there been much research done into how implementable your quantum circuits are in practice? There's always hype about this or that but things like # of physical qubits and gate evaluations required are going to be really important if you want to actually run a program on a quantum computer. For classical computers we have synthesis tools that can create MOSFET layouts for you, what is there for quantum computers? Also, I have a lot of the mathematical and computing background but very sparse physics background past mechanics. Does anyone have a good resource for someone like me, especially wrt implementations of quantum computers and qubits? Physicists always fall back on "spin" and "quantum state" without really being able to explain what they are and how they work. I've also heard of "topological qubits" which sounds interesting but again the physicists usually don't describe the topological aspects very well. >>39638 What's wrong with it? >realistically we'd be okay with 80s computers for PC stuff, sure. But a lot of advancements in protein folding, design by simulation, etc. are possible only because of advancements in computing since then. Especially chemistry and pharmecology will be massively impacted by quantum computers.

>>38846 is it actually practical to find quantum advantaged algorithms for common usecases, and is it possible for non math majors to figure out how to code non trivial soykaf for these things?

>>39640 >and is it possible for non math majors to figure out how to code non trivial soykaf for these things? 1. No 2. Yes

Thoughts on this article? https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/ After reading much of Scott Locklin, his old work on nanotechnology and his modern comparison to quantum computing, and thereafter reading about quantum computing myself, I became very skeptical of the field. It was one I used to be interested in entering, because I thought it could be an exciting 'knowledge frontier' like being a computer scientist in the 60s.

When I can buy a quantum computer at NewEgg and it can do something interesting that my other computers can't do, I'll get interested in quantum computing. Until then it's on the back shelf along with fusion power plants and string theory.

>>40468 Sorry mate, you're going to have to figure this one out yourself for now. Remember how the only reason you're typing this to me right now is because other people have already figured out everything for you and streamlined it for your retarded ass? Not even going to entertain this retarded ideology anymore. Kill yourself.

>>41054 I kind of get his point. The first digital computers were build in the 1930s, 40 years before the Apple I. The mass-energy equivalence was theorized in 1905, 50 years before the opening of the first nuclear power plant. To put it into perspective, the first H-bomb was exploded more than 70 years ago but fusion power plants are still "just around the corner". That said, the first quantum algorithms were devised only 40 years ago, and there have been good progress on the construction of usable quantum computers. The applications, outside of physics simulations, still aren't very clear though.

>>40466 My thoughts are that this fuarrrker should commit suicide on a public livestream for the whole world to see after what Microsoft just announced. Have a wonderful day. -OP

>>41257 >My thoughts are that this fuarrrker should commit suicide on a public livestream for the whole world to see after what Microsoft just announced. Microsoft PR releases do not count as quantum computing news. We've yet to see what will really come of it.

>>41257 micro$oft is blowing smoke, something they do often. they spent however many millions on pr to announce that they once again have 0 qubits. remember that the group that put out that work had to retract several articles a few years because their work could not stand up to scrutiny, and even nature itself posted an opinion of the editors on the same day as their most recent announcement saying they didn't think the paper was honest about what it was claiming. majorana qubits are potentially neat as an idea, but they are far from being made, and even farther from being useful. have a wonderful day. -someone with a career in quantum hardware

>>40466 I think this article is awful. He rapid fires a bunch of retarded arguments, making me loose all will to read through the whole article. Let me address two things: 1. A PHD in quantum computer working as a waiter? Anecdotal evidence of a single person failing to succeed in a very competitive field (academia) means nothing 2. The implication that a field with slow progress must be a scam is either dishonest or idiotic, since in the real world progress in science is often not linear, there are periods of stagnation and there are breakthroughs This is a retarded, incoherent and self-congratulatory rant. I find it utterly insufferable, even though I do agree that quantum computing is way over-hyped, people expect results way too quickly, and I find the idea of quantum startups is ridiculous. Is quantum computing going to emerge in the next 20 years? 40? Is it even going to ever? The truth is, nobody has the faintest of clues. That's the fuarrrking point of science, isn't it? To look into stuff people don't know about, which means the results are not predictable or reliable. Neural networks started in the 1940s with the perceptron, and the first useful results emerged in the early 2010s. Today we are finally starting to deliver on the early promises of AI from 50+ years ago, such as translation and self-driving cars. The truth is that our economies are based on gambling and debt, so speculation emerges everywhere and it's not really the fault of the field. *IF* quantum computers become commercial, the first movers will have advantage, which means it is a very appealing idea to be ahead of the curve for some companies and investors who don't really understand anything about quantum computers. This situation is a golden opportunity for grifters to over-promise and make a bunch of money. Why is it that society is only interested in financing things with short-term returns, and things always degenerate into hype-cycles? Because most people don't care about anything but what will happen to them in the next five years.