15 = 3 x 5: Erik Lucero’s Quantum Computing Breakthrough
Articles,  Blog

15 = 3 x 5: Erik Lucero’s Quantum Computing Breakthrough


[MUSIC] With classical computing,
you reach some limitations, and you run up against physical barriers. And one of those is just related to
the ever decreasing size of the things that are actually bits,
or doing the computation. At these small length scales, you start
to affect atoms, individual atoms. And you need to worry about this sort
of different regime of physics which is typically related to the smaller systems,
which is quantum mechanics. [MUSIC]>>Okay,
let’s get started as soon as possible. My pleasure to have Eric today
defending his thesis and we are excited to be able to ask some questions.
>>[LAUGH]>>Thank you.>>Good call.>>I guess I’m into my sixth, starting my seventh year at UCSB
in the physics PhD program. So I’ll be talking today about some of my
work in the group, and the title here, computing prime factors using a Josephson
phase-qubit quantum processor. So I thought I would start with just sort
of introducing the ideas of classical computing, can look at where we are. So if you think back to around the 50s
when we had this tabletop transistor, which occupied a meter squared, all right? And here we are today,
with Intel Sandy Bridge technology, which fits a billion transistors in about
a chip this size, 100 millimeters squared. As you continue to press these smaller and
smaller sizes, you no longer can do the same things that you were able to do,
and you can either compete with that, or you can decide to harness that power.
>>And the copper powder filters are up here.>>[MUSIC] All right, there we go.
>>Wow, I haven’t seen this before.
>>Yeah, the copper can dude. It’s looking hot. I’m going to pull off the bias tees with
the box and just leave the attenuators. So I’m going to pull from the attenuators. Does that make sense? So pull from here.
>>Why?>>So I wanna bring the bias to you in the box.
>>Again in the box. Okay, that’s exactly what I was not doing.
>>It’s not just that we’re gonna try to make it a better laptop or
a better new phone, or whatever. It’s actually a disruptive technology
in that it would be a different style of computing. It solves problems that on a classical
computer are retractable and you just cannot do.
>>Let’s first put on the safety can here.>>[INAUDIBLE]>>[MUSIC]>>Let’s come down.
>>I just want it flush up top. [MUSIC]>>Stop.
>>The o-ring is falling down.Yeah. It’s fine. Perfect.
>>Yeah, we tore a little nylon. Yeah, hey hey.
>>Yeah, and definitely here.
>>Well, that’s a fixable problem.
>>Thanks guys, looks great.>>As an experimentalist, within the group that I work at, the
expectations are to be able to basically propose an experiment and be able to
do every part of that experiment and ideally, successfully
execute the experiment. Not only in the sense of taking
the correct data analysis and all that but also being able to write it
up in scientific journals. That’s kind of important for
your career and what people, typically,
are gonna be interested in. Of course, the exciting parts about
quantum computing is even the underlying fact that we’re using quantum
mechanics to do this computation now. And rather than these really certain
position or momentum operators and things we can actually say a particle is
actually located here, becomes this wash. It’s actually a probability distribution
where these things can be found. And what we do in quantum computing is
it’s actually a number of experiments are run to come up with a probability. The quantum bit, this qubit, we measure it’s gonna collapse in
one of this things, either 0 or 1. But as you repeat the experiments you get
these probabilities of the system, right? And it can be actually in a super position
of states, where it’s both 0 and 1. The question is whether this is
really something useful to have. And then in practice,
can we actually build such a device? So all right, a practical use of a quantum computer
might be, say to compute prime factors. Let me frame the picture. Multiplying two large
numbers is challenging for most humans, but relatively
straightforward for a classical computer. Recall that computers used
to be used as calculators, not just social networking devices. Finding the prime factors
is the reverse problem. The challenge here is,
say I gave you some composite number, N, where N is composed of p times q. And we seek these prime factors p and
q, okay? Sounds easy enough. Well, let’s maybe try something
like the RSA number of 2048, which is about a 617 decimal digit
composite number that looks like this. So if you’d like, I can give you guys some
scratch paper and wait a few minutes here for everyone to try to factor this.
>>[LAUGH]>>And we’ll start a clock. And let’s see how long it takes
to actually compute this. So what is the time to compute? Well, if I arm you with sort of
the best classical known algorithm, which is the General Number Field Sieve,
and I’ll take Peter Shor’s algorithm, the quantum algorithm, and
we’ll press the go button, right? We’ll wait.>>[MUSIC]>>So it’s gonna take about
the age of the universe for you to solve it with the kinda
classical General Number Field Sieve, whereas it will be on the order of
seconds here with Peter Shor’s algorithm. All right, it’s this image that
really motivated me to actually do this experiment. So why is this relevant,
or why should anyone care? Well, say you wanna send secure
information on the web, right? And you give the credit card number,
bank account, whatever. We encrypt that information between
you and the seller, the vendor, whoever, with basically
this RSA encryption scheme, which relies fundamentally on using these
large composite numbers that are composed of two very big prime numbers multiplied
together to give you that number. That’s kind of the key with which we use
to pass this information back and forth. However with Peter Shor’s algorithm,
the quantum computer, one could crack this very quickly, in order of seconds rather
than the edge of the universe right? So then the question is well,
what security do we have left? What’s great is there’s actually quantum
encryption, which one can actually find out if someone is eavesdropping on their
transmission via quantum entanglement. And it’s a much stronger
test of your information, of how well you secure your information. So the experiment that I’m working
on is to actually map this idea of using Peter Shor’s algorithm
to factor a composite number. One would need a lot more resources
to actually factor larger numbers. So I’ve been working about 5 years
to factor 15 into its prime factors. Got into the clean room,
I’ve made a device. Have a quantum processor composed
of nine quantum elements. Then we insert one of these devices
in a superconducting cavity, wire bond it to make
electrical connections. [MUSIC] And mount it in a helium three,
helium four dilution refrigerator. Thanks guys. I think that’s it, the rest,
I’m gonna take this can off and finish wiring the boxes. Appreciate it. And in order to remove thermal noise, and enter the regime dominated by quantum
mechanics, we evacuate the chamber and cool the quantum processor
to just above absolute 0. [MUSIC]>>[INAUDIBLE] [MUSIC]>>And it is with this quantum
processor that I’m gonna again try and find the factors of 15. [MUSIC] How’s it going?
>>Okay, we should talk.>>Okay.>>We’ve been talking about this. Is this folklore and
myth, or is this science? So if we want to keep this as folklore and
myth, we don’t do anything. [MUSIC]>>And we return that we get, indeed that
15 equals 3 times 5, 48% of the time.>>[APPLAUSE]>>Sir, 48% success rate that was what you were supposed to get?
>>Ideally, you should get 50%, right?>>That’s the best that Shor’s algorithm will do.
>>Okay.>>It’s 50%>>Okay.>>Yeah.>>So, this is clearly just beautiful work. But it does make me wonder, so what’s
the number of qubits we’re aiming for? A thousand? 10 million?
>>10 million would be great.>>[LAUGH]>>And that will be next year, do you think?
>>Yeah, I think that will be next year. Are you recording that?
>>[LAUGH] [MUSIC]

100 Comments

  • I haven't thought of a funny name yet.

    I understand but that analogy is pretty poor. Imagine its a car without wheels, it can move and function, but at a very poor and ineffective way.

  • aaron4820

    Yeah I was just about to ask that then I saw your post, it would be very useful if 48% of the time, 15=3*5, and 52% of the time it's all over the place, so that you know whatever the constant is almost 50% of the time, then that is the right answer… but if 52% of the time you get the same wrong answer (say 5*2)… then there's no way I could tell if 5*2 is the right answer or 5*3 is the right answer in practice..

  • Ralph Walters

    Yes, very very interesting, and a little disturbing. Maybe the proposition that we live in a multiverse has some legs. When we get down to the very fundamental level of nature, we arrive at a sort of gateway to other universes with different sets of physical/mathematical principles. 48% of the time the experiment shows that we are "here", and 52% of the time we are somewhere else, wherever that may be.

  • sigmapsicharlie

    This is cool and what not, but I'm not sure how this is going to help starving people around the world not starve. Or help "3rd world" communities have electricity. All this seems like a new way to make a new Iphone or computer to play Call of Duty. what a waste of money and brain power. I think Tesla had it right to want to make power free for all the world. And until we have these guys dropping quantum everything and working on getting everyone a light to read with, this is all useless.

  • MASTERmw100

    two things that really bother me at the end of the video…why do all of these fucks have strawberries and also whats wrong with the old dude's head? is he a fucking reptilian??

  • TheDoctorRulesPSN

    First of all, quantum computing will not be used for video games or for personal use. This technology has the potential to solve extremely difficult problems in various sciences- like medicine. Eventually, someone will be able to use a quantum computer to fully understand cellular processes and in turn, manufacture powerful medications.

  • badpanda84

    ""First of all, quantum computing will not be used for video games or for personal use""

    LOL it would be pretty funny if the first thing people did was play minesweeper or solitare. If calculating 5 x 3 = 15.. is a breakthough… then playing minesweeper would be amazing

  • james woodfine

    although you say that but didnt the computers we used today started just for very high places like governments, medical, science and big companies. so maybe in 40 to 50 years time we could have quantum computers in are houses playing crysis 23.0

  • Kekekeje Ajsgshdj

    Well considering how much computing power we could have compartively now, the worlds fastest computer will be like a calculator if we can achieve this processing power, which i would think help the medical field find cures vastly quicker,
    "However, the computational basis of 500 qubits, for example, would already be too large to be represented on a classical computer because it would require 2500 complex values (2501 bits) to be stored.[1"

  • Laharl Krichevskoy

    remember capitalism? our computers are shit compared to what they could make, they dont make them better becuase they can still sell us expensive crap. Most of the people know shit about technology anyway. Last 3 or 4 years have been a pita talking about cpus, neither intel nor amd have made any mayor progress. amd is crap and intel stoped getting better after the first FX (bulldozer). Unless they could make more money i dont see them developing something they cant profit.

  • Smokestack

    Because silicon computers, what we are currently using, will reach max computing power in 15 years or so. Quantum computers have no real limits on computing power that we know of. It is just a matter of discerning effective methods to turning that higher power into an effective and accurate means of computation.

  • isodoublet

    Theirs isn't a quantum computer in the same sense. It performs a procedure called quantum annealing which is appropriate for certain optimization problems but not general quantum computer solvable problems.

  • isodoublet

    Yes you can, because checking if a factorization is correct is straightforward: you just have to multiply the numbers together. If you get the wrong result, run the algorithm again. The probability that you'll never get the right answer is about (1/2)^n, which gets very small very quick.

  • Kyle Mallard

    True, but by computing a calculation in seconds compared to 10^9 years, you can definitely afford multiple tests until the right key is obtained.

  • Eralp Bayraktar

    Well let me explain it to you, 15 = 3×5 is integer factorization and those kinds of problems are 'easy-to-check', meaning if you are given a solution you can easily check whether they are correct or not. Keep this in mind. If I told you 987=3*7*47, you can immediately multiply 3 numbers and check whether I was right or wrong. 'Immediately' is compared to the time you would spend if I asked you the question "What is the integer factorization of 987?" Do you see how hard is it?

    So coming to the problem this quantum computer gives us the right solution 48% of the time, wow this is fantastic! I would be glad if I could get the right solution 0.001% of the time! Do you see why?

    Because I could feed the output of the quantum computer to a classical computer and let it check if the solution was correct. How long would it take? 1 ms? Well I certainly could run the quantum algorithm 1000 times, and check the output 1000 times, only 1 second overhead with these numbers. (Of course you would stop if you got the right solution inbetween 0-1000)

    The good thing is that integer factorization problem is easy-to-check as I just said. Consider TSP problem, given a path, can you easily check if it is the solution? Nah, you can't, as much as I know.

  • Gavin Deulufount

    @superstrongholdkapo-  "What exactly does this mean? That math is a partial illusion?"
    It's still all based on math. A problem that's hard from one approach is solvable from another. Especially when you're changing the whole basis of computing from the 'mechanical' macro-world to probabilistic single particles.

  • Gavin Deulufount

    Gotta know, what happens with the other 52%? Is it just noise, some kind of imaginary solutions, a product close to 15, non-prime numbers, or what? It would help to understand the whole jig if we knew.

  • Zycho

    Right now I'm hoping quantum computing will fail because if it succeeds it will be the end of the internet. Maybe that is a good thing in the end though..

  • mukul dhiman

    Seriously, people here are so hateful, these all people are like the dude who said,"There might be a market for only 10 computers." People don't realise how useful this technology is. This can enable you to exhaust near to infinite probabilities, like finding a new stable drug, simulating possible outcomes to complex problems, etc. These computers might not make it to your home, they are going to replace the supercomputers.

  • Martyn Norman

    "But what…is it good for?" — Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

  • AndiotiZ

    I still think Quantum computing still has a LONG way to go. It's more likely that Nano or molecular Computers will precede current generation of computers.

  • Jeff Bond

    If we had 10 million qubits working optimally we'd have enough computing power and data to store every electron, photon, and atom in the universe in so many different states that writing down the number of different state universes would take longer to write than the age of the universe.

  • Silverheartsmusic

    Erik & crew – think about ESD protection when you handle the silicon. static clothes > movement > kV's charge > fries or weakens the silicon. You're carefully carrying the processor – but you're generating a charge – it's looking for the easiest discharge path. Been there done that.  ~Bob, EE

  • monicaxireland

    This is such a complex subject and this is what is being made public about what is being discovered. It makes me wonder at times are even more amazing breakthroughs being made that we are unaware of. The problem of course is that some of these teams are being doomed to going down blind alleyways that will never work without realizing they have been visited before. Has anyone created a list of the different kinds of Quantum research techniques that is currently going on. (i.e like Seth Lloyd's  work at MIT or the different approach  Dwave are using)  to try and define clearly methodologies and outcomes?.  

  • SignatureCha0s

    There's actually a programming language being developed that should work with quantum computers (at least according to simulations and theory) called qBasic.

  • Jeremy Kilroy

    So in order to make it a functional computer. It needs an algorithm that runs what ever you are calculating several times, two arrays with each being run let's say 5 times , if the same value is returned 2 times out of 5 it returns that value to the first array. It does the same thing again and if it returns the same value twice out of five it returns that value as the correct value to the second array. Then it compares the arrays if they have the same value it returns it as the correct calculation and then proceeds to the next calculation, else it reruns the calculation. I think that would work.

  • Alex Moen

    But HOW did this happen?  If you're able to do a basic computation like this, haven't you solved the decoherence problem to some extent (although not perfectly, since it was 48% of the time versus 50)?

  • Valentina Sherren

    I'm just trying to get my head around electrons, molecules and mathematical formulae and wondering how Quantum computing would be beneficial to human beings.  Then I spot a headline about how it could grant immortality – which would be quite an achievement – and I can better understand why it would be worthwhile for these very clever scientists to continue their research into the world of Quantum Physics and the creation of Quantum Computers.

  • GlennBen

    I think they should add the vitron 5000 to the colex capacitor to achieve a high velocity radrant so that the regenitive retrospective invulator will transistally reconsultrate the flux hydron so fusion may be finally possible.

  • littlegodpan1

    When something is completely understood it can be explained in the simplest terms. I will continue to do research. Because I don't understand what it is for. It seems to be a really fast calculator. What is their projected goal?

  • fcycles

    I am guessing that qbits are use in super-impose states to compute all possibilities at once… but to get the answer out of the super-impose states do you need an operation which will make the answer you are looking for come-out? Can someone give an example?

  • Anto Caballero

    Lotto uses the same computing vector of 15. This took me less than a min to fig out. 0 thru 9 from dust to ash. Think about that for a moment.

  • Danny H

    What if your device is working just fine and quantumly speaking? 48% of the time the results are indeed 3 and 5. 52% of the time it is 1 and 15 and -3 and -5

  • Hansel Rainer

    Why they don't use AI like DeepMind to solve the programe to run the quantum computing?
    If using human itself to programme such things, it's gonna take time.

  • James Neave

    Just… please make sure there's one in my phone for encryption before there's one at GCHQ or the NSA listening to my phone. Ta.

  • Fuh Que

    What good is a computer where it gives a right answer (prime factors or whatever) 50% of the time and wrong answer 50% of the time? Sounds like just guessing is just as effective and far cheaper.

  • R Robin

    If the algorithm works on a digital computer already what is the significance of 3×5 = 15 with a 52% error, nothing ground breaking here

  • CC Smooth

    Im assuming that the times it produces a different answer that thats due to the qbits not behaving as they should? Meaning that eventhough theyve supercooled and evacuated the chamber that some outside influences are still affecting the subatomic particles?

  • Ray okeedoki

    In my imaginings of better computing, I always thought that a knowledge base in 3D space, would become the standard. It would contain all of mankind's knowledge to date. A clone of Artificial Intelligences would have it as their base.

    But something I was reckoning on was 3D positioning could effect things by the interactions of actual electro/magnetically at some static level, would influence each other… but I did fail to say at the beginning this was for AI in 3D space… with the concept put forth that all knowledge has its place in logic compared to all other knowledge. And therefore would have its best positioning in 3D structure, a bit like a brain, but better. As it can be logically "wired" before it is designed to mass produced by machine into the solid unit. That is it evolves a Virtual add on for all its learning, so that in the next major upgrade, all of the AI's combine their data, so all get the new upgrade, either virtually or in the 3D mass produced new base model.

    Then again, it could be colours and crystals at some point, making binary a fraz of billions of colours…

  • American Citizen

    If you have to "verify" the result using a traditional computer then you will have a problem. Consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems — if you can solve a problem with a quantum computer that same problem will not be solvable on a traditional computer. If a quantum computer is only "sometimes" correct then you will never be able to verify an quantum answer by checking it on a conventional computer.

  • David Wilkie

    Hypothetically (?), the self-organization of the Quantum Fields Mechanism, is what atomic structures in the Standard Model and Periodic Table are, all resonant summed history, phase-locked together in chemistry and physics, and are arranged according to the languages of mathematics in our perceptions to behave in particular "computed" ways of psudo-randomness. Ie if we can remove the "noise" of the annealing process, then a predetermined result of superposition will match the actual state output by the device, ("The Babbage accuracy of construction problem").

    It's the ultimate parallel processing by design using an effect similar to the growth of spacetime-elemental grains (of primes) in crystal-coordinate resonance?

    Sum of all histories, now to now=>eternal constant/resonance.

    If the analog computation, (another name for an analogy by simplified comparison), is continued, then it's the readout of results that is the determining factor, (literally), of a successful operation, and so the methods and devices used in MRI, tuned to the desired range of solutions, is critical? (And possibly a compound set of scanning frequencies like WiFi in reverse..)

    It's analogous to the "hard problem" of mind in body, because it's a phase-locked distribution of QM-Time, Q-chemistry by Fields Modulation Mechanism e-Pi-i resonance embodiment. If coherence is disturbed, the content in context connection goes very wrong, because the singularity synchronisation of the Quantum principle is also the Quantum Operator of the Exclusion Principle.

    The nearest "device" analogous to the imagined operations of a Quantum Computer is possibly emulated by Human Savants, and that seems to be based on intense focus and vast memory storage with bio-logical Random Access (?)
    If structures, =events, within the Universe are resonance grains of spacetime, and bio-logical organisms are integrated multi-oscillator quantum information computation, insect colonies are hive-mind distributed computation, then brain-body organisms are integrated cellular hive-mind, up to the levels of self-recognition and "consciousness".
    Everything is phase-locked in resonance and timing spacing coherence/exclusion of cofactor-primes, AM-FM phenomena.

    One Multiverse ghost of coherence in one Quantum Computational Machine?

  • 蔣國棟

    if we seek the prime factors of N = p x q,
    “N equals post wrong question” can’t seek a “prime n quick” solution with no me in we.
    no equal prize nor request for prime n priwe then → pri
    the answer is pri

  • PhatGar

    We're on our way, I say.

    Remember, the first models of our Computer was just like this. One computer required one room, it was only able to compute numbers and nothing else, it has a separate room for the CPU, it's loud, it takes more than one person to make a computer work before. People thought it was impossible to finish. But not anymore.

    With quantum computers, we are doing the same thing again, but more ambitious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *