How to build a million-qubit quantum computer
December 4, 2012

Hybrid dual-quantum dot/superconducting resonator device (credit: K. D. Petersson et al./Nature)
A team led by Princeton‘s Associate Professor of Physics Jason Petta has developed a new method that could eventually allow engineers to build a working quantum computer consisting of millions of quantum bits (qubits).
Quantum computers take advantage of the strange behaviors of subatomic particles like electrons. By harnessing electrons as they spin, scientists could use the particles to form the basis for a new type of computing.
The problem, though, is that these incredibly tiny electrons are hard to control. So far, scientists have only been able to harness extremely small numbers of them.
“The whole game at this point in quantum computing is trying to build a larger system,” said Andrew Houck, an associate professor of electrical engineering at Princeton who is part of the research team.
A cage for trapping electrons
To transfer information Petta’s team used a stream of microwave photons to analyze a pair of electrons trapped in a tiny cage called a quantum dot. The “spin state” of the electrons — information about how they are spinning — serves as the qubit, a basic unit of information. The microwave stream allows the scientists to read that information.
“We create a cavity with mirrors on both ends — but they don’t reflect visible light, they reflect microwave radiation,” Petta said. “Then we send microwaves in one end, and we look at the microwaves as they come out the other end. The microwaves are affected by the spin states of the electrons in the cavity, and we can read that change.”
In an ordinary sense, the distances involved are very small; the entire apparatus operates over a little more than a centimeter. But on the subatomic scale, they are vast. It is like coordinating the motion of a top spinning on the moon with another on the surface of the Earth.
“It’s the most amazing thing,” said Jake Taylor, a physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who worked on the project with the Princeton team. “You have a single electron almost completely changing the properties of an inch-long electrical system.”
One challenge facing scientists is that the spins of electrons, or any other quantum particles, are incredibly delicate. Any outside influences, whether a wisp of magnetism or glimpse of light, destabilizes the electrons’ spins and introduces errors.
Over the years, scientists have developed techniques to observe spin states without disturbing them. (This year’s Nobel Prize in physics honored two scientists, Serge Haroche and David Wineland, who first demonstrated the direct observation of quantum particles.) But analyzing small numbers of spins is not enough; millions will be required to make a real quantum processor.
Making quantum dots
To make the quantum dots, the team isolated a pair of electrons on a small section of material called a “semiconductor nanowire.” Basically, that means a wire that is so thin that it can hold electrons like soda bubbles in a straw. They then created small “cages” along the wire. The cages are set up so that electrons will settle into a particular cage depending on their energy level.
This is how the Princeton team reads the spin state: electrons of similar spin will repel, while those of different spins will attract. So the team manipulates the electrons to a certain energy level and then reads their position. If they are in the same cage, they are spinning differently; if they are in different cages, the spins are the same.
The second step is to place this quantum dot inside the microwave channel, allowing the team to transfer the information about the pair’s spin state — the qubit.
Petta said the next step is to increase the reliability of the setup for a single electron pair. After that, the team plans to add more quantum dots to create more qubits. Team members are cautiously optimistic. There appear to be no insurmountable problems at this point but, as with any system, increasing complexity could lead to unforeseen difficulties.
“The methods we are using here are scalable, and we would like to use them in a larger system,” Petta said. “But to make use of the scaling, it needs to work a little better. The first step is to make better mirrors for the microwave cavity.”
Support for the research was provided by the National Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Army Research Office, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Quantum Entanglement Science and Technology Program.
Comments (14)
by libra9
I am impressed with the sophistication and civility of the dialogue between GAUSS and time the realist.
Perhaps there IS some hope for mankind.
by libra9
Sorry, that is “tim” the realist.
by YeahYeahYeah
Anthrobotic, this guy disagrees with you: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/508246/why-the-universe-is-not-a-computer-after-all/
by tim the realist
Can anyone explain to me why reliability is so important in these types of computing architectures? My understanding is that this type of computer would be used primarily for NP type problems.
Why can’t these architectures simply be scaled up at the cost of reliability and have the program run multiple times. If it’s right ~1% of the time, then that should be plenty good enough to use classical computers to analyse thousands or millions of result states to see if they are any better than standard classical solutions.
Factoring large numbers for instance is easy to check potential answers. So if you get hundreds or thousands of potential answers they can all be quickly checked using classical architecture to identify the final correct solution. Many NP problems are like this.
by GAUSS
After a certain point, you wouldn’t be able to use classical computers to verify any answers. The problems, especially in discrete optimization, just get too big for any i7, GPU, or otherwise. :(
by tim the realist
Please provide an example where a classical computer cannot verify if one proposed solution to a computational problem is “better” than another. “Better” may mean more precise, shorter path, lower cost, etc.
Usually the number of possible solutions to an NP problem is very large and requires checking all of them to find the best.
Using a low reilability quantum computer to provide a set of possible answers to check can quickly reduce the size of the solution space.
by GAUSS
Ex: Traveling Salesman Problem. A quantum computer would likely be very good at this, but it would take most classical computers on the order of several million years to check a calculation. There are proofs for this, but I won’t invoke them here. ;)
by tim the realist
You are missing the point.
Traveling slaesman is exactly the type of problem that only requires a 1% accuracy ot be successful. Only run 10,000 times on a quantum computer and pick out the best path it comes up with. With 10,000 answers from the quantum computer with a 1% chance any one of them is actually correct there is only a 2.24877E-44 probability you won’t have the absolute best answer contained within the answer set. Going up to 1,000,000 or so runs lower the probability so low that it basically can’t happen. This is close enough for the best solution from the data set to be used as the actual solution for these type of problems
by GAUSS
Ok, I see. You’re essentially describing quantum Monte Carlo methods. It could work, you’d just never know if you had *the* optimal solution unless you had a purely deterministic quantum computer (functionally 100% accurate). Even so, it’s a great idea, and one worth exploring. :)
by anthrobotic
Apologies, mistaken link in comment #2. For the correct link to a simulation theory piece with a dusting of quantum mechanics/computing flavor: http://goo.gl/ZD9cJ
by eldras
Planck (inventor of quantum theory) was a crackpot who believed there was a divine intelligence controlling everything. we dont know much about QT and are using trial and error a lot.
by anthrobotic
With advances in quantum computing, possible “pixelation” of the universe, and some supremely annoying probability, seems reality most likely is a computer simulation.
God, an intensely needy & cosmically powerful cat lady, is just playing the latest release of “Semi-Conscious Hairless Primates.”
Yep.
More: http://goo.gl/2wkcN
-Reno at Anthrobotic.com
by GAUSS
Not a cat lady! Noooooo!
by anthrobotic
AHHHHHH!! WRONG LINK!!!
Apologies. For the correct link to a simulation theory piece: http://goo.gl/ZD9cJ