This is all very interesting. I work for another division of Honeywell (not this quantum group) and about 4 years ago designed a “cryogenic device” for a “Honeywell customer”; I won’t go into specifics but I figured it had something to do with QC, but they took the design and never responded back.
The title is hype. "World's most powerful" is beyond questionable. They're using IBM's measure of "quantum volume" which is a nice way to boil down a hugely complicated system to a single number where management can agree "the numbers got bigger!" But I have yet to see anything directly connecting it to any sensible notion of computational power.
How about "Honeywell announces impending launch of their quantum computing effort"
Random circuits are really only good for proving that you are in fact operating a quantum computer, since you can test the results, and random quantum circuits can not be efficiently simulated by classical computers. So quantum volume is not a totally meaningless metric, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate any capability for real problems that people would like to use quantum computers on: factoring, solving discrete logs, general search problems, or simulating quantum physics systems.
In any field you need representative benchmarks. ¼ mile time isn't the best car, GHz isn't the best clasic computer. The problem with quantum computers is they can't yet do anything well. So the isn't really anything to benchmark.
I've asked the contrary -- "why is quantum volume a good measure?" And haven't been satisfied. But don't take my word for it; I'm not a QC expert, (some of my friends are)...
> Quantum Volume would also benefit the CEO or investor who lacks the in-depth technical knowledge necessary to make confident investment decisions in the technology. Additionally, reported variations in Quantum Volume from company to company would likely stimulate more articles by the media, which would serve to educate the general public further.
Look at your computer. It's got a processor with a certain number of cores, a maximum clock frequency, a hierarchical cache system with varying sizes; it's got a certain amount of RAM with its own operating frequency; a graphics card with some number of cores, its own RAM and clock frequency. Imagine that I hand you a single number that's supposed to encapsulate all that information -- let's say something of the form frequency * cores * ram. And... maybe that kinda makes sense? But it doesn't actually correspond to any kind of real-world performance.
The issue isn't so much that there's parts lost in the measure -- rather, they've thrown in the kitchen sink and it's hard to say what it all really means. Except convincing management, "big numbers go zoom!"
Can't really argue with that sort of hedge. I'd even go so far as to say it does correlate with performance on a completely artificial benchmark. But that's a far cry from "it faithfully describes computational power" that would justify the headline in question.
My understanding was that quantum volume was an attempt to unify the previously used metric of number of qubits with some concept of potentially being able to do useful work. The last part being why these metrics are elusive. Adding more Transistors to a processor is only useful if we agree they are all beinh used. Same with qubits, in particular if you can't error correct your qubits you can't be confident in the result. So improvement in quantum volume seems to give a better yardstick for the roadmap on general quantum computing.
Is it the same Honeywell who did products like industrial limit switchs and so? When you go to there homepage now, there is something like "industrie", but you can't find a real product. Do they just things like consulting now? Strange website ..
Porting is unfeasible; Multics relies on hardware features not available. An emulator for the original hardware can be found at: http://ringzero.wikidot.com/ Information about Multics at: https://multicians.org/
That's like asking if a stapler can dispense tape. QC is not and never was intended to be for general purpose computing. It's a tool for specific use cases where classical computing falls apart very quickly, like the traveling salesman problem.
Problems like TSP are terrible examples because we have an excellent and affordable approximation for lots of them. A working general quantum computer (if anybody builds one) will be an expensive way to slightly improve those results. It's the gold-plated HDMI cable of quantum computer applications.
Factoring isn't like dispensing tape, it has one of the few applications (breaking conventional asymmetric cryptography) for which an expensive but working general quantum computer gives you a clear benefit (with Shor's algorithm) over just buying a lot of ordinary computers.
And all these press release "breakthrough" machines can't do it because it's hard. They're at best a stalling tactic, to buy more time/money to solve the hard problems and at worst they're essentially a con.
Factoring large numbers is by far the most famous "specific use case" for quantum computers. Even in theory, they can't achieve exponential speed up (only quadratic) for travelling salesman.
Yes, I understand that I will not be running Windows desktop, or doing anything remotely familiar on a QC. But factoring very large numbers very fast has been, for quite a while now, the sales pitch of the QC evangelists. One of the strongest use cases put forward, one that has gotten many a grad students a thesis, and many schools and labs a fat grant. But yet, my $1.50 microcontroller can do it in a few milliseconds, while a $10M, liquid nitrogen cooled monster is incapable of doing so. I don't see progress occurring.
https://www.honeywell.com/content/dam/honeywell/files/Beta_1...
This is all very interesting. I work for another division of Honeywell (not this quantum group) and about 4 years ago designed a “cryogenic device” for a “Honeywell customer”; I won’t go into specifics but I figured it had something to do with QC, but they took the design and never responded back.