Oxford Physicist Unloads On Quantum Computers Says They're A Scam

[Hydrogen]

Seriously Though

Oxford quantum physicist Nikita Gourianov tore into the quantum computing industry this week, comparing the "fanfare" around the tech to a financial bubble in a searing commentary piece for the Financial Times.

In other words, he wrote, it's far more hype than substance.

It's a scathing, but also perhaps insightful, analysis of a burgeoning field that, at the very least, still has a lot to prove.

Cashing In

Despite billions of dollars being poured into quantum computing, Gourianov argues, the industry has yet to develop a single product that's actually capable of solving practical problems.

That means these firms are collecting orders of magnitude more in financing than they're able to earn in actual revenue — a growing bubble that could eventually burst.

"The little revenue they generate mostly comes from consulting missions aimed at teaching other companies about 'how quantum computers will help their business,'" Gourianov wrote for the FT, "as opposed to genuinely harnessing any advantages that quantum computers have over classical computers."

Contemporary quantum computers are also "so error-prone that any information one tries to process with them will almost instantly degenerate into noise," he wrote, which scientists have been trying to overcome for years.

Gourianov also took aim at other assumptions about the field, arguing that fears over quantum computers being able to crack even the securest of cryptographic schemes are overblown.

Notably, the piece comes just weeks after a group of researchers found that a conventional computer was indeed able to rival Google's Sycamore quantum computer, undermining the tech giant's 2019 claims of having achieved "quantum supremacy."

Pure Hype

Despite the industry's less-than-stellar results, investors are still funneling untold sums into quantum computing ventures.

"In essence, the quantum computing industry has yet to demonstrate any practical utility, despite the fanfare," Gourianov wrote. "Why is then so much money flowing in? Well, it is mainly due to the fanfare."

The money, he argues, is coming from investors who typically don't have "any understanding of quantum physics," while "taking senior positions in companies and focusing solely on generating fanfare."

In short, Gourianov believes it's only a matter of time until the "bubble will pop" and the "funding will dry up" — at which point, it's already too late.



https://futurism.com/the-byte/oxford-physicist-unloads-quantum-computing

....


It seems the dot com bubble never truly ended.

Artificial intelligence, metaverse, NFTs, quantum computers and web3 have converged to create an entirely new tech bubble 2.0.

Investors have once again begun randomly throwing piles of funding at dubious tech projects. Hoping to become an early adopter of the next amazon, google or bitcoin. Without any guarantee that promises made by developers can be delivered on.

Quantum computers have to be recognized as a dead technology for now. There simply is no legitimate prototype or proof of concept. And there never was. Perhaps in the future the technology will mature into something with real world application. But at the moment its more vaporware than flying cars.

[1715237559]

1715237559

[1715237559]

1715237559

[1715237559]

1715237559

[NotATether]

Quantum computers are just an advance in technology, they are not some cool new technology stack or hardware stack dropped by a corporation to make profits. Give them a chance to evolve, just because graphics hardware had not been developed in the 80s doesn't make them a scam. The same with 64-bit technology, the USB standard, parallelism and so on - none of that is snake oil, because it represents industry progress.

[NeuroticFish]

In other words, he wrote, it's far more hype than substance.

Quantum computers have to be recognized as a dead technology for now. There simply is no legitimate prototype or proof of concept. And there never was. Perhaps in the future the technology will mature into something with real world application. But at the moment its more vaporware than flying cars.

He is right: it's more hype than substance. But no, that direction is not a dead technology, there is some (small amount of) "substance" there after all.
Yes, they're far from making it consumer grade. Yes, since it's extremely prone to errors, and also it needs to stay at very low temperatures and protected from any kind of vibrations, it's almost like we want to build something meant to not work on Earth. But this only means that they have more work to do.
Also if the funding will (ever) get depleted, this idea will probably get halted, not buried. And maybe a fresh idea can change everything.

So, exactly like with "bitcoin is dead", I would not be so eager to announce the death of QC. I could be too easily get proven I'm wrong.

[jackg]

40 years have been spent researching quantum machines overall, that's a long time but the tremendous computing power they might be able to overcome will probably make it more worthwhile onif they're discovered or if their discoveries can be used to speed up systems already.

Afaik (I'm not too clued up on quantum physics) a lot of quantum relies on making assumptions and just not knowing things. There's probably some way that needs to be gone to advance that before quantum computers actually become a thing.

Also based off my quick searches, quantum computing was theorised in the 80s and has attempted to be built since then. I think a lot of things in physics are short of one or two major breakthroughs - also more people invest in making things when they know it's possible or when there's working designs they can copy (like with genomic sequencing between 2010 and 2020).

[franky1]

quantum is NOT about alternative universes/wormholes/breaking physics
its not about time travel or all the other stupid sci-fi stuff

heck its not even about some 'coupling' of atoms at great distance

all of the youtube influencers talking about alternate universes and that crap are scammers and trying to profit

it all began when science doing actual QC experiments didnt want to reveal how basic QC actually is so they talked about some mystic thing. to protect their patents in their early stages.. and then idiots rolled with it believing it

the very short and very dumbed down version is

binary is one direction with 2 options (logic gate)

QC is where data can go into a gate, split off into more then 2 options including reverse.
this means that mid operation data can go though a process and trigger a return to a previous gate, which then changes the sequence mid flow and the go forward again with a new result to that second gate. again
also instead of just using options of 0 or 1.. they can use 0,1,2,3


this means QC can do more things than binary can

binary is inefficient at problems that need more then 2 option decisions. as it takes more then one bit/gate to compute this.

quantum can handle more then 2 option decisions/directions of data flow

[Hydrogen]

A true quantum computer has two advantages over modern day semiconductor based systems.

1.  Greater bitwise density. Rather than binary 0 and 1 based bits. Each quantum register bit can represent a far greater range of values.

2.  Higher clock speed. Current computers have a clock based on a quartz crystal if I remember correctly. In theory a quantum based design might achieve a far higher clock rate than our current gigahertz clock speeds.

Machines which are currently called "quantum computers" have not delivered on either of these promises. That's what makes quantum computing a dead technology.

Current era qubits are more emulations of quantum bits than true prototypes or proof of concept. There are many quantum bit emulators that can be downloaded and run on normal PCs for research purposes.

A CPU clock design based on quantum principles which would allow for higher than gigahertz based clock speeds has also failed to manifest.

While there is a lot of hype behind quantum computers atm. And a lot of funding being thrown at quantum computing development. There is no legitimate evidence anywhere that can be found that says any of the developments made in the industry have succeeded in improving over current era technology.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle was theorized to be a founding principle to quantum computers and quantum encryption. The orbit of electrons might be entangled to produce uniqueness which would afford a degree of encryption. The many positions of orbiting electrons might also be used to represent many different states and values. These are some of the founding principles of quantum computing science. Of which progress has not been made.