Questions tagged [google-sycamore]
A 54-qubit superconducting quantum processor by Google Quantum AI which is claimed to have been used to demonstrate quantum computational supremacy.
11
questions
12
votes
2
answers
1k
views
Understanding Google's “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor” (Part 1): choice of gate set
I was recently going through the paper titled "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor" by NASA Ames Research Centre and the Google Quantum AI team (note that the paper was ...
- 17.7k
6
votes
1
answer
837
views
Understanding Google's “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor” (Part 3): sampling
In Google's 54 qubit Sycamore processor, they created a 53 qubit quantum circuit using a random selection of gates from the set $\{\sqrt{X}, \sqrt{Y}, \sqrt{W}\}$ in the following pattern:
...
- 17.7k
9
votes
1
answer
1k
views
Understanding Google's “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor” (Part 2): simplifiable and intractable tilings
In Google's 54 qubit Sycamore processor, they created a 53 qubit quantum circuit using a random selection of gates from the set $\{\sqrt{X}, \sqrt{Y}, \sqrt{W}\}$ in the following pattern:
...
- 17.7k
4
votes
2
answers
385
views
Do quantum supremacy experiments repeatedly apply the same random unitary?
It is my understanding that, given a quantum computer with $n$ qubits and a way to apply $m$ single- and 2-qubit gates, quantum supremacy experiments
Initialize the $n$ qubits into the all-zero's ket ...
- 12.9k
22
votes
2
answers
4k
views
What does Google's claim of "Quantum Supremacy" mean for the question of BQP vs BPP vs NP?
Google recently announced that they have achieved "Quantum Supremacy": "that would be practically impossible for a classical machine."
Does this mean that they have definitely proved that BQP ≠ BPP ?...
- 675
3
votes
1
answer
305
views
Where are the physical gates in the Google processor?
Google's article Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor states that the processor "53 qubits, 1,113 single-qubit gates, 430 two-qubit gates, and a measurement on each qubit, ...
- 641
18
votes
1
answer
4k
views
Which subatomic particle does each company use in quantum computing?
Probably each company (Google, Amazon, Intel, IBM, Microsoft, D-Wave and so on) uses a mix of subatomic particles and technologies. I would like to know which particles/technologies are used by each ...
15
votes
1
answer
538
views
Status of Google's quantum supremacy claim 2022
More than a year ago a couple of scientists made a splash by presenting a classical algorithm that took less than a week to simulate Sycamore's circuits on a small GPU cluster. Also, their simulations ...
- 2,813
5
votes
1
answer
288
views
Can we conclude that errors on Sycamore are Poisson-distributed Pauli errors?
In Martinis' recent Caltech lecture on the Sycamore paper, he appears to make much of the fact that FIG. 4 of the paper show straight-line fidelity - that is, the fidelity decreases log-linearly with ...
- 12.9k
5
votes
1
answer
358
views
Do all physical architectures for quantum computers use the same universal gate sets?
Now I have understood that physical implementation of quantum computer need a universal quantum gate set like Clifford+T to realize any unitary quantum gate. However, I don't know if it is all the ...
- 467
4
votes
2
answers
251
views
How exactly is solving the random circuit sampling problem a computation in the Church-Turing thesis sense?
Note: This has been cross-posted to CS Theory SE.
If we assume $\mathsf{BQP} \neq \mathsf{BPP}$, then we can say with reasonable certainty that Google's random sampling experiment falsifies the ...
- 17.7k