Is Quantum Computing Dead?
As part of composing My Quantum Computing Swan Song, I pondered this question:
- Is quantum computing dead?
I wrote about it in My Quantum Computing Swan Song, but for easier reference here is my response to this essential question…
Is quantum computing dead?
True, analytical computation that is, not analog-style simulation.
Besides a Monty Python quip of “It’s not dead yet!”, the answer is basically a resounding… yes, quantum computing is dead, effectively. Sure, there’s plenty of going through the motions, lots of activity — twitching, but without any truly inspiring progress bringing a useful, production-scale quantum computer palpably close to fruition.
Brain-dead. Or maybe in a death-like zombie mode, on autopilot, moving mindlessly without going anywhere or getting anywhere.
Existing at an animal-like subsistence level without any human, intelligent, intellectual drive.
Kind of a Frankenstein-like “monster”, with all the parts there (well… sort of), but lacking animation in any useful sense.
Have any truly new (and exciting) ideas about quantum computing surfaced in the last few to five years?
IBM introduced the 27-qubit Falcon in 2019. Sure, we have many more qubits now, but we NEVER achieved full utility for even 27 qubits — Quantum Volume of 2²⁷ (134,217,728.) Granted, Quantinuum has achieved QV 2²³ (8,388,608.)
IBM itself has abandoned the Quantum Volume metric, never getting past 512, replacing it with metrics like EPLG and CLOPS, which… NOBODY understands or knows how to relate to practical real-world applications! Tower of Babel, anyone?!!
IBM went from 27 qubits to 65, 127, 433, and finally to Condor with 1,121 qubits. With Osprey delivered five months late and then withdrawn after only four months, and Condor only briefly running in the lab and its chip shown on stage, but never available to ANYONE for actual use.
Since then, IBM fell back to 133 qubits for Heron. A revised Heron has 156 qubits, although the upcoming Nighthawk will have only 120 qubits. Not a very inspiring progression.
Try finding ANYBODY who can recite what the EPLG or CLOPS are for ANY of these systems!
Won’t quantum error correction (QEC) and fault-tolerance save us? Nope. As I’ve written, I see that QEC will ultimately fail. Sure, it may indeed work in a fashion, but it is too horribly complex and complicated to be practical. It will be like a big and bloated airplane that might look fine and taxi around fine, but is too heavy to get off the ground. And it won’t be able to handle the errors that will matter most, fine-angle rotations.
Diving down into the weeds, just a little, there are three main technical stumbling blocks (among others!) which completely sap any enthusiasm I might have for the potential for quantum computing:
- Inability to reach and zoom past three nines of qubit and gate fidelity. Some research efforts have touched (barely!) three nines in some niche cases, but my estimate is that we need four to five nines for any serious quantum computing, even for fairly low-end applications. Vendors simply aren’t putting in the effort or even expressing serious commitment or even any interest in this essential aspect of quantum computing. 3.75, 3.5, and maybe even just 3.25 nines might enable some interesting applications, but… nobody is getting anywhere near that… and not even seriously trying to!
- Lack of full any-to-any (all-to-all) connectivity between qubits. Some modalities have achieved this but most have not. Worse, most vendors simply aren’t putting in the effort or even expressing serious commitment or even any interest in this aspect. Zero interest. Zero. Z-E-R-O!!
- Extreme uncertainty as to how fine-grained probability amplitude and phase can be. AKA fine-angle rotations. The math of real numbers in the range of 0.0 to 1.0 is fine, even for infinite precision; real phenomena with that precision? Not so much. Dozens or hundreds of gradations may be a slum dunk, but beyond that? Thousands? Millions? Billions and beyond? Completely unknown at this stage. With no theory, analysis, or experimental evidence to base any assumptions on. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Metrics, benchmarks, and disclosure? Again… nothing! Advanced applications, such as using wide quantum Fourier transforms (QFT) and quantum phase estimation (QPE), will require very fine-grained or even extremely fine-grained probability amplitude and phase, but there is essentially no serious discussion of this essential aspect of quantum computing. Vendors and academic researchers alike simply aren’t putting in the effort or even expressing serious commitment or even any interest in this aspect. Zero interest. Zero. Z-E-R-O!!
The extreme lack of progress, commitment, or even interest in these three critical stumbling blocks by vendors and academic researchers alike make it very easy for me to shake my head, sigh, and throw up my hands in despair… and walk away.
Maybe the only thing keeping my attention is that I am a student of phenomena, any complex phenomena, and watching a trainwreck unfold quickly or even very slowly is worthy of study, even if simply to analyze it for lessons to be learned to avoid such phenomenal and colossal failures in future endeavors.
What might it take to bring quantum computing back to life? None of the above! We need a true breakthrough, that is head and shoulders categorically distinct from what we currently have. Or as they would say on Monty Python, and now for something completely different!
Alternatively, it may not be that the raw technology per se is the issue, but that the science and technology are overwhelmed by inept, incompetent, and uninspiring management.
Maybe we should just relegate quantum computing to being… a conspiracy theory. That would certainly keep it alive and funding flowing in!
This is starting to feel like the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, where I can clearly see that there is nothing there, but everybody else is confidently proclaiming that what they (think they) can see is extravagant, wonderful, and of great value.
Besides the inadequacy of the quantum programming model I have deep concerns about the upper limit for entanglement of qubits, the upper limit for simultaneous quantum states for deeply-entangled qubits (2^n quantum states for n qubits), and the lower limit for granularity or discrimination of probability amplitude for those 2^n quantum states and fine-grained calculations based on probability amplitudes for those 2^n quantum states, such as for quantum Fourier transforms (Shor’s factoring algorithm being the worst case so far, and farthest from fruition.)
I wrote something about this looming issue almost five years ago:
- Beware of Quantum Algorithms Dependent on Fine Granularity of Phase
- https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/beware-of-quantum-algorithms-dependent-on-fine-granularity-of-phase-525bde2642d8
That said, I do still have hope that quantum algorithms and circuits using 48 to 64 qubits might still be technically and theoretically feasible, with 2⁴⁸ to 2⁶⁴ quantum states, even if there is no credible hope for hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, or trillions of deeply entangled qubits with extremely fine granularity of probability amplitude. It is unclear, and there are no experimental or theoretical results that ascertain either the upper limit for deep entanglement or the lower limit for reliable granularity of probability amplitude. I mean, at some level, basic quantum uncertainty will swamp and dwarf any finer granularity. Everybody else seems oblivious to this prospect. Oh well!!
If I sound too negative, here are a pair of proposals that I have written with a more positive attitude, that I think have at least a remote possibility of being practical, and in the relatively near term:
- 48 Fully-connected Near-perfect Qubits As the Sweet Spot Goal for Near-term Quantum Computing
- https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/48-fully-connected-near-perfect-qubits-as-the-sweet-spot-goal-for-near-term-quantum-computing-7d29e330f625
And
- Modest Proposal for a Quantum Minicomputer Based on a 4x4x4 Cube of 64 Photonically-connected Near-perfect Discrete Qubits with Full Qubit Connectivity
- https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/modest-proposal-for-a-quantum-minicomputer-based-on-a-4x4x4-cube-of-64-photonically-connected-4bda9a382734
Alas, the quantum computing community is too far gone to pay attention to or express any interest in any such modest and practical proposals. Sigh! Oh well!!
Although quantum computing as we know it may be dead, a dead end, maybe this is just Quantum Computing 1.0, and maybe in the years and decades ahead quantum computing will be reincarnated as a Quantum Computing 2.0 which is radically different from Quantum Computing 1.0 as we know it and actually shows some sign of life. Maybe. Hope does spring eternal, so they say. But that won’t help until and if it eventually does happen, so it’s not something we can rely on today in the here and now. That’s a fantasy. Wishful thinking. Not a living reality.
For years now, I have held the belief, the position, that current qubit technologies are far from ideal and that the ideal (or even simply practical) qubit technology has yet to be discovered or invented. That does beg the question as to whether a reasonable qubit technology will ever be invented. Only time and action will tell.
But what about the stock market for quantum computing?
Hah! We can talk all we want about facts, merit, and value, but the stock market is only partially driven by such factors, called fundamentals.
A huge fraction of the stock market, especially for any new technology is driven by what Wall Street calls animal spirits. Noted economist John Maynard Keynes coined that term. Much — or even most — of Wall Street is driven by emotion, passion, popularity, sentiment, and all manner of psychological factors. Hopes, dreams, aspirations, optimism, and yes, even the much-dreaded hype run wild on Wall Street. Sometimes they call it irrational exuberance.
As famed investor Warren Buffett has put it “In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” Meaning that in the short run popularity, sentiment, and all those psychological factors run the market, but in the longer run fundamentals kick in.
That’s in bull markets. But there are also bear markets, where the psychology and animal spirits run in the exact opposite direction.
There are many schools of thought on Wall Street, a spectrum from pure irrational exuberance on one end, a casino, if you will, to strict fundamentals on the other end, with hybrid methodologies along the way.
New and young companies can indeed thrive in the stock market for some time based on promises and claims of potential, but somewhere down the line investors will want to see real, fundamental results, with substantial revenue, substantial profits, clear business value for customers, a healthy growth rate, and consistency of performance.
For now, Wall Street is rather bullish (favorable) on quantum computing and quantum technologies in general. That may not last forever, or may wax and wane like the weather, but for now there is a definite bullish attitude towards the potential or presumed potential for quantum computing.
So, while I have serious concerns about the technical potential, the merit, and the actual value of quantum computing for production-scale practical applications for real-world problems, I’m also betting that Wall Street will remain enthusiastic for this new technology for at least a couple more years.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, but there is money to be made in the relatively near term.
In fact, I have stock positions in every company which is a player in the market for quantum computing, and I’ve had these positions for several years now. I bought IonQ stock as a SPAC back in 2021.
How these companies will fare on Wall Street in the coming years is a real crap shoot, but for now I’m enjoying the ride.
That said, don’t be surprised if two, three, five, seven, or ten years from now it all comes tumbling down as the old dot-com bubble did in 2000. Just as with dot-com, there may be an afterlife, a Web 2.0, and some of the current players may survive, but a whole new wave of players for a Quantum Computing 2.0 may in fact rule the roost in that new world.
And if you think you can predict what the future will be for either quantum computing technology or quantum computing stocks, please be very mindful of the prescient words of famed economist and equally-famed investor and trader, John Maynard Keynes:
- Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
The only guarantee is that it will be a wild ride. So, enjoy… for now!
For more on the stock market for quantum computing, including a list of publicly-traded stocks related to quantum computing, see:
For more of my writing: List of My Papers on Quantum Computing.
