The Case Against ‘The Case Against Quantum Computing’

By Ben Criger

January 9, 2019

Editor’s note: In this contributed piece, Ben Criger, a post-doctoral researcher at QuTech, part of the TU Delft in the Netherlands, responds to criticisms of quantum computing and offers an explanation for why such criticisms tend to garner a lot of attention.

It’s not easy to be a physicist. Richard Feynman (basically the Jimi Hendrix of physicists) once said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.” This maxim motivates us to be critical of our research, even if we’re more critical when it comes to the research of others. From time to time, we even look through journals and technical magazines for arguments against the things we’re trying to do.

Last month, while I was looking for some nice criticism of quantum computing, I had the opportunity to read an article called “The Case Against Quantum Computing,” written by Mikhail Dyakonov, in IEEE Spectrum. While I was reading, I noticed two things that seemed out of the ordinary. First, all of the physics-based criticism of quantum computing was wrong, or had been addressed twenty years ago when the field was starting. The second, and perhaps more important thing, is that I could see the appeal of the article, despite its technical deficiencies.

I noticed that this article had been reviewed on the 27th of November by John Russell, here in HPCwire, so I thought that this would also be a good forum for a rebuttal (many thanks to Tiffany Trader for giving me the opportunity to write one). In the following sections, I’m going to go over two of the main technical points that Dyakonov makes, and try to give people a better idea about where we’re at in quantum computing. I’ll conclude with a comment on the article’s appeal.

Precision in Computing

Dyakonov: “A useful quantum computer needs to process a set of continuous parameters that is larger than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.”

No computer, classical or quantum, ever has to process even a single continuous parameter. In classical computers, we can use floating-point arithmetic to approximate continuous parameters using a finite number of bits. Most of the time, we can even manage to do it to within the desired relative precision, in order to avoid catastrophic error propagation. This is because the number of numbers which we can express using a floating-point type scales exponentially with the number of bits.

Normally, I wouldn’t belabour this point so heavily, but I’m going to do the “quantum” version of this in a minute, so let’s take a look at an animation of floating-point representations in action:

Here, I’m writing out all numbers of the form (−1)base sign×significand× 10((−1)exp sign∗exponent), when the variables significand and exponent are each n-bit integers. Now, I can’t plot the whole real line (my monitor isn’t wide enough), so I’ve used a Riemann projection, drawing a ray from the center of the semi-circle shown above to the point on the real line that I’d like to show, and instead showing where that ray intersects the semi-circle, like so:

 

If we begin with 0 bits in the significand and exponent, we can assign any value we like to the sign bits, and the only number we can represent is 0. There are four independent ways, therefore, to represent 0, so there’s a little inefficiency in the representation. However, by the time I get up to 9 bits each in the significand and exponent, all of the points plotted are overlapping, and it’s clear that I have enough precision for the task at hand, for any real number I care to approximate.

A similar result holds in quantum computing, though the ‘data type’ we’ll consider here is a single qubit’s state, rather than a real number. The continuous complex parameters α and β mentioned by Professor Dyakonov go in a length two vector:

These parameters can also be mapped to angles θ and φ on the Bloch sphere, like so:

α = cos(θ/2)        β = esin(θ/2)

(exercise for the reader: show that the state |0>, with α = 1 and β = 0, sits at the North Pole).

The operations we can apply in quantum computing are unitary matrices, equivalent to rotations of the Bloch sphere. For a single qubit, these matrices have two rows and two columns. Now, in fault-tolerant quantum computing, the operations which we can implement with arbitrarily low (but not exactly zero) error rates are limited to a discrete set. Let’s suppose for the sake of example, that there are two, and that they’re called H and T. Furthermore, let’s suppose that we only know how to initialise a single fixed state of our fault-tolerant qubit, the |0> state. How many qubit states can we reach with a string of Hs and Ts of fixed length n? Again, just as in floating-point arithmetic, the number of sequences I can generate scales exponentially with respect to the length of the sequence, despite a few collisions at low n (for example, HH |0> = |0>):

This animation doesn’t look quite as nice as the last one. There’s a lot more space to cover on the sphere than there is on the semi-circle that we used for floating-point arithmetic. From this, we can conclude that quantum computing is harder than classical computing, though I suspect that this does not come as a surprise.

Now, this isn’t the only thing fundamentally wrong with quantum computing, according to Professor Dyakonov. According to him, the entire discussion above is irrelevant, since imprecision and error will inevitably ruin any large-scale quantum computation before we can even think about stringing our Hs and Ts together. This is probably also not a surprise, but this was one of the first big problems that was ever solved in quantum computing, and I’ll talk about it a bit in the following section.

The Threshold Theorem

Dyakonov: “Indeed, [scientists studying quantum computing] claim that something called the threshold theorem proves it can be done. They point out that once the error per qubit per quantum gate is below a certain value, indefinitely long quantum computation becomes possible, at a cost of substantially increasing the number of qubits needed. With those extra qubits, they argue, you can handle errors by forming logical qubits using multiple physical qubits.”

The threshold theorem, initally proven by Aharonov and Ben-Or, has been around for about twenty years. The proof itself is in a 63-page paper, but the basic qualitative argument is relatively easy to grasp in a few paragraphs. At the cost of oversimplifying things, I’ll try to summarise that argument here.

Let’s define a logical gate as a small quantum computation that uses a number of physical gates acting on encoded states to simulate the effect of a single physical quantum logic gate acting on an unencoded state. Some logical gates can be made fault-tolerant by adding quantum error correction subroutines. The function of these subroutines is to correct the failure of a small number (typically one) of the physical quantum logic gates included in either the logical gate, or the error correction subroutines themselves. Each of these gadgets (that’s the technical term) contains a certain number of physical gates, let’s call it G. Also, let’s assume that, if any pair of these gates does something unanticipated, that the whole thing fails. When, then, does such a circuit have a low error probability? Let’s suppose, for the sake of simplicity, that each physical gate fails with probability p. The probability of error for the fault-tolerant gadget is , and whenever that’s less than p, we’re in business.

Now,  may not be a low enough probability of error for a given computation. In that case, we take advantage of something called concatenation, which is where you replace every physical gate in a fault-tolerant logical gate with yet another fault-tolerant logical gate, as depicted below:

If we use l levels of this concatenation, the number of gates we need to execute scales exponentially in l, but (very importantly) the final probability of error is p2l [ed. note: p^2^l] so it’s doubly-exponentially suppressed.

If this sounds clunky and inefficient to you, you’d be more or less right. The important thing for this initial proof of concept was not that the scheme be particularly efficient, but that it use simple ideas which could be widely understood. Over the past twenty years, a small community of quantum computing researchers have been concerned with finding more efficient schemes, with fewer gates, and the ability to tolerate higher error rates, and the results have been fairly positive. They’ve also been hard at work proving that quantum computing can still be made fault-tolerant if the errors are correlated, rather than independent, as I’ve assumed above (though Aharonov and Ben-Or consider weak correlations in their original work).

During this time, people like Mikhail Dyakonov (and Gil Kalai, and other noted skeptics of quantum computing) have been career researchers. If the theorem were false, we’d expect one of these skeptics, or someone they’ve inspired, to have proven that it was false, or to show that physically-reasonable correlated noise precludes quantum computing. They have not done this. Instead, Dyakonov has loosely suggested that the theorem is false, without a direct statement, or evidence. I, for one, think that the theorem is more or less correct, and that quantum computing is possible.

These are the official fact-based rebuttals that we physicists rely on when confronted with critiques from Dyakonov and the other scientists and engineers who believe that quantum computing is doomed for some reason or another. They’ve been used before, and I suspect that they’ll be used again. In one sense, they’re perfectly sufficient, but I don’t think they’ve addressed the core problem. Dyakonov’s critiques are unfounded, and yet they endure. Why?

The Important Question

So, why was Dyakonov’s article written? Why was it published? I hope I’ve argued adequately that there’s not a lot of science behind it, so why is it so appealing?

I think this article was published because, in a sense we don’t often talk about, it’s correct. People who study quantum computing don’t view it as our responsibility to oppose the unjustified hype building up in the popular press. Times are tough for scientists in every field, as the budgets for those funding agencies Dyakonov mentions dwindle. There’s a temptation not to rock the boat, especially when the critics we do have don’t do a great job of challenging us on technical grounds.

We lament the lack of well-founded criticism, but how often, and how loudly, do we lament the abundance of unfounded optimism? Are these two things not equally dangerous to the progress of science? We’re the people best able to criticise quantum computing, is it then our responsibility to do so?

So far, we’ve left editors with little selection when they look for something to stem the tide of breathless proclamations about how quantum computing is going to solve everything. We often lament the lack of good critiques of quantum computing, but in the end, the only chance we have to elevate the level of criticism is to do it ourselves.

About the Author

Ben is a post-doctoral researcher at QuTech, part of the TU Delft in the Netherlands. His research is focused on near-term implementations of fault-tolerant quantum computing. He can be reached via Twitter (@BenCriger) and GitHub (github.com/bcriger). Scripts producing the animations in this article can be found at github.com/bcriger/examples/tree/master/articles/2019_01_HPCWire.

Subscribe to HPCwire's Weekly Update!

Be the most informed person in the room! Stay ahead of the tech trends with industy updates delivered to you every week!

Nvidia Debuts Clara AI Toolkit with Pre-Trained Models for Radiology Use

March 19, 2019

AI’s push into healthcare got a boost yesterday with Nvidia’s release of the Clara Deploy AI toolkit which includes 13 pre-trained models for use in radiology. Clara, you may recall, is Nvidia’s biomedical platform Read more…

By John Russell

DARPA, NSF Seek Real-Time ML Processor

March 18, 2019

A new U.S. research initiative seeks to develop a processor capable of real-time learning while operating with the “efficiency of the human brain.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Defense Advanced Re Read more…

By George Leopold

It’s Official: Aurora on Track to Be First U.S. Exascale Computer in 2021

March 18, 2019

The U.S. Department of Energy along with Intel and Cray confirmed today that an Intel/Cray supercomputer, "Aurora," capable of sustained performance of one exaflops, will be delivered by the end of 2021 to Argonne Nation Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

HPE Extreme Performance Solutions

HPE and Intel® Omni-Path Architecture: How to Power a Cloud

Learn how HPE and Intel® Omni-Path Architecture provide critical infrastructure for leading Nordic HPC provider’s HPCFLOW cloud service.

powercloud_blog.jpgFor decades, HPE has been at the forefront of high-performance computing, and we’ve powered some of the fastest and most robust supercomputers in the world. Read more…

IBM Accelerated Insights

The Spark That Ignited A New World of Real-Time Analytics

High Performance Computing has always been about Big Data. It’s not uncommon for research datasets to contain millions of files and many terabytes, even petabytes of data, or more. Read more…

NASA’s Pleiades Simulates Launch Abort Scenarios

March 15, 2019

NASA is using flow simulations running on its Pleiades supercomputer to help design the agency’s next manned spacecraft, Orion. Crew safety is paramount, so NASA engineers are using the HPC cluster to simulate and v Read more…

By George Leopold

Nvidia Debuts Clara AI Toolkit with Pre-Trained Models for Radiology Use

March 19, 2019

AI’s push into healthcare got a boost yesterday with Nvidia’s release of the Clara Deploy AI toolkit which includes 13 pre-trained models for use in radiolo Read more…

By John Russell

It’s Official: Aurora on Track to Be First U.S. Exascale Computer in 2021

March 18, 2019

The U.S. Department of Energy along with Intel and Cray confirmed today that an Intel/Cray supercomputer, "Aurora," capable of sustained performance of one exaf Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Why Nvidia Bought Mellanox: ‘Future Datacenters Will Be…Like High Performance Computers’

March 14, 2019

“Future datacenters of all kinds will be built like high performance computers,” said Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a phone briefing on Monday after Nvidia revealed scooping up the high performance networking company Mellanox for $6.9 billion. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Oil and Gas Supercloud Clears Out Remaining Knights Landing Inventory: All 38,000 Wafers

March 13, 2019

The McCloud HPC service being built by Australia’s DownUnder GeoSolutions (DUG) outside Houston is set to become the largest oil and gas cloud in the world th Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Quick Take: Trump’s 2020 Budget Spares DoE-funded HPC but Slams NSF and NIH

March 12, 2019

U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2020 budget request, released yesterday, proposes deep cuts in many science programs but seems to spare HPC funding by the Depar Read more…

By John Russell

Nvidia Wins Mellanox Stakes for $6.9 Billion

March 11, 2019

The long-rumored acquisition of Mellanox came to fruition this morning with GPU chipmaker Nvidia’s announcement that it has purchased the high-performance net Read more…

By Doug Black

Optalysys Rolls Commercial Optical Processor

March 7, 2019

Optalysys, Ltd., a U.K. company seeking to advance it optical co-processor technology, moved a step closer this week with the unveiling of what it claims is th Read more…

By George Leopold

Intel Responds to White House AI Initiative

March 6, 2019

The Trump Administration’s release last month of the “American AI Initiative,” aimed at prioritizing federal R&D investments in machine intelligence, Read more…

By Doug Black

Quantum Computing Will Never Work

November 27, 2018

Amid the gush of money and enthusiastic predictions being thrown at quantum computing comes a proposed cold shower in the form of an essay by physicist Mikhail Read more…

By John Russell

The Case Against ‘The Case Against Quantum Computing’

January 9, 2019

It’s not easy to be a physicist. Richard Feynman (basically the Jimi Hendrix of physicists) once said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourse Read more…

By Ben Criger

ClusterVision in Bankruptcy, Fate Uncertain

February 13, 2019

ClusterVision, European HPC specialists that have built and installed over 20 Top500-ranked systems in their nearly 17-year history, appear to be in the midst o Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Intel Reportedly in $6B Bid for Mellanox

January 30, 2019

The latest rumors and reports around an acquisition of Mellanox focus on Intel, which has reportedly offered a $6 billion bid for the high performance interconn Read more…

By Doug Black

Looking for Light Reading? NSF-backed ‘Comic Books’ Tackle Quantum Computing

January 28, 2019

Still baffled by quantum computing? How about turning to comic books (graphic novels for the well-read among you) for some clarity and a little humor on QC. The Read more…

By John Russell

Why Nvidia Bought Mellanox: ‘Future Datacenters Will Be…Like High Performance Computers’

March 14, 2019

“Future datacenters of all kinds will be built like high performance computers,” said Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a phone briefing on Monday after Nvidia revealed scooping up the high performance networking company Mellanox for $6.9 billion. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Contract Signed for New Finnish Supercomputer

December 13, 2018

After the official contract signing yesterday, configuration details were made public for the new BullSequana system that the Finnish IT Center for Science (CSC Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Deep500: ETH Researchers Introduce New Deep Learning Benchmark for HPC

February 5, 2019

ETH researchers have developed a new deep learning benchmarking environment – Deep500 – they say is “the first distributed and reproducible benchmarking s Read more…

By John Russell

Leading Solution Providers

SC 18 Virtual Booth Video Tour

Advania @ SC18 AMD @ SC18
ASRock Rack @ SC18
DDN Storage @ SC18
HPE @ SC18
IBM @ SC18
Lenovo @ SC18 Mellanox Technologies @ SC18
NVIDIA @ SC18
One Stop Systems @ SC18
Oracle @ SC18 Panasas @ SC18
Supermicro @ SC18 SUSE @ SC18 TYAN @ SC18
Verne Global @ SC18

IBM Quantum Update: Q System One Launch, New Collaborators, and QC Center Plans

January 10, 2019

IBM made three significant quantum computing announcements at CES this week. One was introduction of IBM Q System One; it’s really the integration of IBM’s Read more…

By John Russell

IBM Bets $2B Seeking 1000X AI Hardware Performance Boost

February 7, 2019

For now, AI systems are mostly machine learning-based and “narrow” – powerful as they are by today's standards, they're limited to performing a few, narro Read more…

By Doug Black

The Deep500 – Researchers Tackle an HPC Benchmark for Deep Learning

January 7, 2019

How do you know if an HPC system, particularly a larger-scale system, is well-suited for deep learning workloads? Today, that’s not an easy question to answer Read more…

By John Russell

HPC Reflections and (Mostly Hopeful) Predictions

December 19, 2018

So much ‘spaghetti’ gets tossed on walls by the technology community (vendors and researchers) to see what sticks that it is often difficult to peer through Read more…

By John Russell

Arm Unveils Neoverse N1 Platform with up to 128-Cores

February 20, 2019

Following on its Neoverse roadmap announcement last October, Arm today revealed its next-gen Neoverse microarchitecture with compute and throughput-optimized si Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Move Over Lustre & Spectrum Scale – Here Comes BeeGFS?

November 26, 2018

Is BeeGFS – the parallel file system with European roots – on a path to compete with Lustre and Spectrum Scale worldwide in HPC environments? Frank Herold Read more…

By John Russell

France to Deploy AI-Focused Supercomputer: Jean Zay

January 22, 2019

HPE announced today that it won the contract to build a supercomputer that will drive France’s AI and HPC efforts. The computer will be part of GENCI, the Fre Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Microsoft to Buy Mellanox?

December 20, 2018

Networking equipment powerhouse Mellanox could be an acquisition target by Microsoft, according to a published report in an Israeli financial publication. Microsoft has reportedly gone so far as to engage Goldman Sachs to handle negotiations with Mellanox. Read more…

By Doug Black

  • arrow
  • Click Here for More Headlines
  • arrow
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
Share This