Seems like we are moving from theory to pactice faster than expected.
adrian_b•3h ago
> “We can now make lots of swap gates with neutral atoms”, says Tilman Esslinger, “but of course we still need a few other ingredients to build a working quantum computer.”
SideQuark•1h ago
This is not a 17000 qubit general computer. Read the paper.
For real? I wouldn't have thought so many would be possible so soon. Might actually need to look into quantum computing again after 20 years.
sigmoid10•1h ago
It is still orders of magnitude away from breaking RSA 2048 even under the most optimistic assumptions. And qubits double waaay slower than transistors so far.
SideQuark•1h ago
They did not make a 17000 qubit computer. The qubits were not controllable or general in any way. The paper is linked, look at it.
This title is misleading.
fsh•1h ago
I find the editorialized title misleading. They trapped 17000 atom pairs in an optical lattice and demonstrated a high-fidelity quantum gate between the atoms of each pair in parallel. There is no interaction between the atoms of different pairs and no individual control. The experiment demonstrates a very robust gate scheme, but is a long way from a programmable computer.
baxtr•39m ago
With the hype QC these days, I find it hard to separate hype from real progress.
ionwake•26m ago
its still more than my nephew managed to achieve this morning
TheEaterOfSouls•6m ago
I have questions. Is he attempting to build a quantum gate array? Seems kind of unfair to compare one person's efforts with a well-established university, if so. :P
progbits•21m ago
ETHZ news page is always overhyped. There is good research coming from there but their marketing is never worth reading.
vasco•4m ago
What is overhyped about: "A new trick brings stability to quantum operations". Are people complaining about the HN title as if it's the article's title?
nottorp•24m ago
Judging by the other comments on here, they learned to title their articles from OpenAI and Anthropic.
joko42•6h ago
adrian_b•3h ago
SideQuark•1h ago