Monthly Archives: February 2022

By Amanda Gefter

Mary Iverson

IMAGINE approaching a Renaissance sculpture in a gallery. Even from a distance, it looks impressive. But it is only as you get close and walk around it that you begin to truly appreciate its quality: the angle of the jaw, the aquiline nose, the softness of the hair rendered in marble.

In physics, as in life, it is important to view things from more than one perspective. As we have done that over the past century, we have had plenty of surprises. It started with Albert Einsteins theory of special relativity, which showed us that lengths of space and durations of time vary depending on who is looking. It also painted a wholly unexpected picture of the shared reality underneath one in which space and time were melded together in a four-dimensional union known as space-time.

When quantum theory arrived a few years later, things got even weirder. It seemed to show that by measuring things, we play a part in determining their properties. But in the quantum world, unlike with relativity, there has never been a way to reconcile different perspectives and glimpse the objective reality beneath. A century later, many physicists question whether a single objective reality, shared by all observers, exists at all.

Now, two emerging sets of ideas are changing this story. For the first time, we can jump from one quantum perspective to another. This is already helping us solve tricky practical problems with high-speed communications. It also sheds light on whether any shared reality exists at the quantum level. Intriguingly, the answer seems to be no until we start talking to each other.

When Einstein developed his theory of relativity in the early 20th century, he worked from one fundamental assumption: the laws of physics should be the same for everyone. The trouble was, the laws of electromagnetism demand that light always travels at 299,792 kilometres per second and Einstein realised this creates a problem. If you were to race alongside a light beam in a spaceship, you would expect to see the beam moving far slower than usual just as neighbouring cars dont look to be going so fast when you are zipping along the motorway. Yet if that was the case, the laws of physics in that perspective would be violated.

In the quantum world, there has never been a way to reconcile different perspectives and glimpse the shared reality beneath

Einstein was convinced that couldnt happen, so he was forced to propose that the speed of light is constant for everyone, regardless of how fast they are moving. To compensate, space and time themselves had to change from one perspective to the next. The equations of relativity allowed him to translate from one observers perspective, or reference frame, to another, and in doing so build a picture of the shared world that remains the same from all perspectives.

He went on to develop these ideas into general relativity, which remains our best theory of gravity. But it isnt the whole story. In Einsteins writings, reference frames are always defined by rods and clocks, physical objects against which space and time are measured. These objects are, however, governed by a different theory altogether.

Quantum theory deals with matter and energy and is even more successful than relativity. But it paints a deeply unfamiliar picture of reality, one in which particles dont have definite properties before we measure them, but exist in a superposition of multiple states. It also shows that particles can become entangled, their properties intimately linked even over vast distances. All this puts the definition of a reference frame on shaky ground. How do you measure time with a clock that is entangled, or distance with a ruler that is in multiple places at once?

How do you measure time with a clock that is entangled, or distance with a ruler that is in multiple places at once?

Quantum physicists usually avoid this question by treating measuring instruments as if they obey the classical laws of mechanics developed by Isaac Newton. The particle being measured is quantum; the reference frame isnt. The dividing line between the two is known as the Heisenberg cut. It is arbitrary and it is moveable, but it has to be there so that the measuring device can record a definite result.

Consider Schrdingers cat, the thought experiment in which an unfortunate feline is in a box with a radioactive particle. If the particle decays, it triggers a hammer that breaks a vial that releases a poison that kills the cat. If it doesnt, the cat lives. You are outside the box. From your perspective, the contents are entangled and in a superposition. The particle both has and hasnt decayed; the cat is both dead and alive. But, as in relativity, shouldnt it be possible to describe the situation from the perspective of the cat?

This conundrum has long bothered aslav Brukner at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna, Austria. He wanted to understand how to see things from multiple points of view in quantum theory. Following Einsteins lead, he started from the assumption that the laws of physics must be the same for everyone, and then developed a way to mathematically switch between quantum reference frames. If we could describe a situation from either side of the Heisenberg cut, Brukner suspected that some truth about a shared quantum world might emerge.

What Brukner and his colleagues found in 2019 was a surprise. When you jump into the cats point of view, it turns out that just as in relativity things have to warp to preserve the laws of physics. The quantumness previously attributed to the cat gets shuffled across the Heisenberg cut. From this perspective, the cat is in a definite state it is the observer outside the box who is in a superposition, entangled with the lab outside. Entanglement was long thought to be an absolute property of reality. But in this new picture, it is all a matter of perspective. What is quantum and what is classical depends on the choice of quantum reference frames, says Brukner.

Jacques Pienaar at the University of Massachusetts says all this allows us to rigorously pose some fascinating questions. Take the well-known double-slit experiment, which showed that a quantum particle can travel through two slits in a grating at once. We see that, relative to the electron, it is the slits themselves that are in a superposition, says Pienaar. To me, thats just wonderful. While that might all sound like mere theorising, one thing that gives Brukners ideas credence is that they have already helped solve an intractable problem relating to quantum communication (see Flying qubits).

Quantum reference frames do have an Achilles heel though, albeit one that might ultimately point us to a deeper appreciation of reality. It comes in the form of Wigners friend, a thought experiment dreamed up in the 1950s by physicist Eugene Wigner. It adds a mind-bending twist to Schrdingers puzzle.

Faced with the usual set-up, Wigners friend opens the box and finds, say, that the cat is alive. But what if Wigner himself stands outside the lab door? In his reference frame, the cat is still in a superposition of alive and dead, only now it is entangled with the friend, who is in a superposition of having-seen-an-alive-cat and having-seen-a-dead-cat. Wigners description of the cat and the friends description of it are mutually exclusive, but according to quantum theory they are both right. It is a deep paradox that seems to reveal a splintered reality.

Brukners rules are no help here. We cant hop from one side of the Heisenberg cut to the other because the two people are using different cuts. The friend has the cut between herself and the box; Wigner has it between himself and the lab. They arent staring at each other from across the classical-quantum divide. They arent looking at one another at all. My colleagues and I were hoping that the Wigners friend situation could be rephrased in quantum reference frames, says Brukner. But so far, that hasnt been possible. I dont know, he sighs. Theres a missing element.

Suhaimi Abdullah/Getty Images

Hints as to what that might be are coming from work by Flavio Mercati at the University of Burgos in Spain and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia at the University of Naples Federico II in Italy. Their research seems to suggest that by exchanging quantum information, observers can create a shared reality, even if it isnt there from the start.

The duo were inspired by research carried out in 2016 by Markus Mller and Philipp Hhn, both then at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, who imagined a scenario in which two people, Alice and Bob, send each other quantum particles in a particular state of spin. Spin is a quantum property that can be likened to an arrow that can point up or down along each of the three spatial axes. Alice sends Bob a particle and Bob has to figure out its spin; then Bob prepares a new particle with the same spin and sends it back to Alice, who confirms that he got it right. The twist is that Alice and Bob dont know the relative orientation of their reference frames: ones x-axis could be the others y-axis.

Alice and Bobs communication may forge the structure of space-time

If Alice sends Bob just one particle, he will never be able to decode the spin. Sometimes in physics, two variables are connected in such a way that if you measure one precisely, the other no longer exists in a definite state. This tricky problem, known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, applies to particles spin along different axes. So if Bob wants to measure spin along what he thinks is Alices x-axis, he has to take a wild guess as to which axis that really is if he is wrong, he erases all the information. The pair can get around this, however, if they exchange lots of particles. Alice can tell Bob, Im sending you 100 particles that are all spin up along the x-axis. As Bob measures more and more of them, he can begin to work out the relative orientation of their reference frames.

Here is where it gets interesting. Mller and Hhn realised that, in doing all this, Alice and Bob automatically derive the equations that enable you to translate the view from one perspective to another in Einsteins special relativity. We tend to think of space-time as the pre-existing structure through which observers communicate. But Mller and Hhn flipped the story. Start with observers sending messages, and you can derive space-time.

For Mercati and Amelino-Camelia, who first came across the work a few years ago, that flip was a light-bulb moment. It raised a key question that turns out to have a crucial bearing on Brukners work: are Alice and Bob learning about a pre-existing space-time or is the space-time emerging as they communicate?

There are two ways in which the latter could play out. The first has to do with the trade-off in quantum mechanics between information and energy. To gain information about a quantum system you have to pay energy, says Mercati. Every time Bob chooses the correct axis, he loses a bit of energy; when he chooses wrong and erases Alices information, he gains some. Because the curvature of space-time depends on the energy present, when Bob measures his relative orientation he also ends up changing the orientation a tiny bit.

There could be a more profound sense in which quantum communication creates space-time. This comes into play if space is whats called non-commutative. If you want to arrive at a point on a normal map, it doesnt matter in which order you specify the coordinates. You can go over five and up two; or up two and over five either way you will land on the same spot. But if the laws of quantum mechanics apply to space-time itself, this might not be true. In the same way that knowing a particles position prevents you from measuring its momentum, going over five might prevent you from going up two.

Mercati and Amelino-Camelia say that if space-time does work in this way, Alice and Bobs attempts to find out their relative orientation wouldnt merely uncover the structure of space-time, they would actively forge it. The choices they make as to which axes to measure would alter the very thing their communication was meant to reveal. The pair have also devised a way to test whether this is really the case (see Does space-time commute?).

All this work points towards a startling conclusion: that as people exchange quantum information, they are collaborating to construct their mutual reality. It means that if we simply look at space and time from one perspective, not only do we miss its full beauty, but there might not be any deeper shared reality. For Mercati and Amelino-Camelia, one observer does not a space-time make.

That leads us back to the Wigners friend paradox that flummoxed Brukner. In his work, observers can be treated as having perspectives on the same reality only when they are gazing at one another from across the Heisenberg cut. Or, put another way, only when it is possible for them to communicate, which is precisely what Wigner and his friend cant do. Perhaps this is telling us that until two people interact, they dont share the same reality because it is communication itself that creates it.

Networks of cables that carry quantum information are already being set up around the world as a prototype quantum internet. These networks transport information in the form of qubits, or quantum bits, which can be encoded in the properties of particles typically in a quantum property called spin. One person sends a stream of particles to another, who then measures their spin to decode the message.

Except, not so fast. To be a useful means of communication, these particles must travel at close to the speed of light. At such speeds, a particles spin gets quantum entangled with its momentum in such a way that if the receiver only measures the spin, information will be lost. This is serious, says Flaminia Giacomini at the Perimeter Institute in Canada. The qubit is the basis for quantum information, but for a particle moving at very high velocities, we can no longer identify a qubit. As if that werent enough of a problem, each qubit doesnt move at one definite speed: thanks to quantum mechanics, it is in what is known as a superposition of velocities.

The rules of quantum reference frames developed by aslav Brukner (see main story) could be the answer. Giacomini has shown how the rules can be used to jump into the particles reference frame, even when the particle is in a superposition. From that perspective, it is the rest of reality that is whizzing past in a blurred superposition. Armed with knowledge of how the qubit sees the world, you can then determine the mathematical transformation to perform on the particle to recover the information in the original qubit.

In ordinary space, it isnt the journey that matters so much as the destination. If youre trying to arrive at a given place, it makes no difference whether you head 5 kilometres south and then 3 kilometres west, or vice-versa. That is because the coordinates commute; they get you to the same spot regardless of the order.

At very small scales to which quantum theory applies, this might not be true. In quantum theory, measuring a particles position erases information about its momentum. Similarly, it could be that the order in which movements are made could affect the structure of space. If this is so, it makes no sense to talk about space-time as a fixed arena.

Physicists Flavio Mercati and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia think they have a way to find out whether space-time commutes. They were inspired by research that imagined two people exchanging quantum particles and measuring their properties to deduce their relative orientation (see main story). What would happen, Mercati and Amelino-Camelia asked, if this game were played for real?

As the people exchange more and more particles, their uncertainty about their orientation should decrease. But will it ever get to zero? In ordinary space-time, it will. But if space-time is non-commutative, some uncertainty will always remain, since their orientation is ever so slightly rewritten with each measurement. The pair might have to exchange trillions of particles before we will have an answer but Mercati thinks it is worth a try.

More on these topics:

See the original post here:

Do we create space-time? A new perspective on the fabric of reality - New Scientist

DURHAM, N.C., Feb. 3, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- February 3, 2022, collaboration agreement was signed between Allosteric Bioscience, a company founded in 2021 integrating Quantum Computing and Artificial Intelligence with Biomedical sciences to create improved treatments for Aging and Longevity and Polaris Quantum Biotech, a company at the vanguard of Quantum Computing for drug discovery. Together, they are utilizing advancements in Quantum Computing and Artificial Intelligence for development of novel pharmaceuticals.

Improved Aging, Longevity and Aging related diseases is a lead program at Allosteric Bioscience and the focus of this agreement, supported by an investment in Polarisqb. This joint program uses Quantum Computing (QC) and artificial intelligence (AI) for creation of an inhibitor of a key protein involved in Aging that could have benefits for health representing a multibillion-dollar market. Allosteric Bioscience is using its "QAB" platform for integrating QC, AI, genetics, genomics, system biology, epigenetics, and proteomics, as well as two Aging platforms: "ALT" - Aging Longevity Targets and "ALM" Aging Longevity Modulators.

Dr. Shahar Keinan, CEO of Polarisqb stated, "Quantum Computing technology is coming of age, allowing us to revolutionize drug discovery timelines, while improving the overall profile of the designed drugs. We are excited about the joint program with Allosteric tackling Aging and Longevity using Polarisqb's Tachyon platform. The application of Quantum Computers to solving these complex questions is extraordinary."

Dr. Arthur P. Bollon, President of Allosteric Bioscience stated, "The agreement between Allosteric Bioscience and Polarisqb represents an important milestone in implementing the Allosteric Bioscience strategy of integrating the Quantum Computer and advanced AI with Biomedical sciences for creation and development of advanced treatments for Improved Aging, Longevity and Aging related diseases."

Story continues

Polaris Quantum Biotech, a leader in Quantum Computing for drug discovery, created the first drug discovery platform built on a Quantum Computer. Founded in 2020 by Shahar Keinan, CEO, and Bill Shipman, CTO, Polarisqb uses cloud, quantum computing, and machine learning to process, evaluate and identify lead molecules 10,000 times faster than alternative solutions. These high-quality drug leads are taken to synthesis, testing, and licensed to partners for development within months, rather than years. Information is available at http://www.Polarisqb.com

Allosteric Bioscience founders, Bruce Meyers, Arthur P. Bollon, Ph.D., and Peter Sordillo, Ph.D., M.D., have decades of expertise in the biotechnology industry as well as biomedical disciplines including genomics, epigenetics, systems biology, proteomics as well as oncology and quantum physics. Bruce Meyers and Dr. Bollon, founded multiple biotechnology companies including Cytoclonal Pharmaceutics (Dr. Bollon served as Chairman and CEO) which merged to create OPKO Health, a NASDAQ company with a market cap of $2 billion. Dr. Sordillo, who has a background in quantum information theory, is a leader in treating sarcomas and other cancers and managed over 50 clinical trials at leading institutions including Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

For information about Allosteric Bioscience: Dr. Arthur P. Bollon- abollon@allostericbioscience.com or Bruce Meyers- bmeyers@allostericbiocience.com

For information about Polarisqb: Dr. Shahar Keinan - skeinan@polarisqb.com or Will Simpson - wsimpson@polarisqb.com.

Cision

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/quantum-computing-targets-improved-human-aging-and-longevity-in-new-agreement-between-allosteric-bioscience-and-polaris-quantum-biotech-301474412.html

SOURCE PolarisQB

Read the original here:

Quantum Computing Targets Improved Human Aging and Longevity in new Agreement between Allosteric Bioscience and Polaris Quantum Biotech - Yahoo...

Fundamental physics research in Finland has led to at least six very successful spin-offs that have supplied quantum technology to the global market for several decades.

According to Pertti Hakonen, an academic at Aalto University, it all started with Olli Viktor Lounasmaa, who in 1965 established the low-temperature laboratory at Aalto University, formerly Helsinki University of Technology. He served as lab director for about 30 years, says Pertti Hakonen, professor at Aalto University.

The low-temperature lab was a long-term investment in basic research in low-temperature physics that has paid off nicely. Hakonen, who has been conducting research in the lab since 1979, witnessed the birth and growth of several spin-offs, including Bluefors, a startup that is now by far the market leader in cryostats for quantum computers.

In the beginning, there was a lot of work on different cryostat designs, trying to beat low-temperature records, says Hakonen. Our present record in our lab is 100 pico-kelvin in the nuclei of rhodium atoms. Thats the nuclear spin temperature in the nuclei of rhodium atoms, not in the electrons.

For quantum computing you dont need temperatures this low. You only need 10 milli-kelvin. A dilution refrigerator is enough for that. In the old days, the cryostat had to be in a liquid helium bath. Bluefors was a pioneer in using liquid-free technology, replacing the liquid helium with a pulse tube cooler, which is cheaper in the long run. The resulting system is called a dry dilution refrigerator.

The pulse tube cooler is based on two stages in series. The first stage brings the temperature down to 70 kelvin and the next stage brings it down to 4 kelvin. Gas is pumped down and up continuously, passing through heat exchangers a process that drops the temperature dramatically.

Bluefors started business with the idea of adding closed-loop dilution refrigeration after pulse tube cooling. In 2005 and 2006, pulse tube coolers became more powerful, says David Gunnarsson, CTO at Bluefors. We used pulse tube coolers to pre-cool at the first two stages, which takes you down to around 3 kelvin. We get the pulse tube coolers from an American company called Cryomech.

Bluefors key differentiator is a closed-loop circulation system, the dilution refrigerator stages, where we circulate a mixture of helium 4 and helium 3 gas. At very cold temperatures, this becomes liquid, which we circulate through a series of well-designed heat exchangers. This approach can get the temperature down to below 10 milli-kelvin. This is where our specialty lies going below the 3 kelvin you get from off-the-shelf coolers.

Bluefors has more than 700 units on the market that are used for both research in publicly funded organisations, and for commercial research and development. One big market that has driven the dilution refrigeration is quantum computing. Anyone currently doing quantum computing based on superconducting qubits is most likely to have a Bluefors cryogenic system.

When a customer recognises the need for a cryogenic system, they talk to Bluefors to decide on the size of the refrigerator. This depends on the tasks they want to do and how many qubits they will use. Then they start looking at the control and measurement infrastructure, which must be tightly integrated with the cryogenic system. Some combination of different components and signalling elements might be added, depending on the frequencies being used. If the control and measurement lines are optical, then optical fibres are included.

As soon as Bluefors and the customer reach an agreement, Bluefors begins to produce the cryogenic enclosure, along with a unique set of options tailored to the use case. Bluefors then runs tests to make sure everything works together and that the enclosure reaches and maintains the temperatures required by the application.

The system has evolved since the company first started marketing its products in 2008. To cool down components with a dilution refrigerator, Bluefors uses a cascade approach, with nested structures that drop an order of magnitude in temperature at each level. The typical configuration includes five stages, with the first stage now bringing the temperature down to 50 kelvin. The temperature goes down to about 4 kelvin at the second stage, and reaches 1 kelvin at the third. It then drops to 100 milli-kelvin at the fourth stage, and at the fifth stage gets down to 10 milli-kelvin, or even below.

The enclosure can cool several qubits, depending on the power dissipation and the temperature the customer needs. A challenge here is that the more power dissipates, the higher the temperature is raised, and every interaction can increase the temperature.

Our most powerful model today can probably run a few hundred qubits in one enclosure, says Gunnarsson. IBM has just announced it has a system with 127 qubits. We can handle that many in one enclosure using the most powerful system we have today.

In most architectures, quantum programs work by sending microwave signals to the qubits. The sequence of signals constitutes a program. Then you have to read the outcome at the end.

The user typically has a microwave source at room temperature, says Gunnarsson. Usually, when it reaches the chips, its at power levels of the order of pico-watts, which is all that is needed to drive a qubit. Pico-watts are one trillionth of a watt a very small power requirement.

That is also a power that is very hard to read out at room temperature. So to read the output from a chip, the signal has to be amplified and taken back up to room temperature. A cascade of amplification is required to get the signal to the level you need.

The microwave control signals and the read-out process at the end constitute a cycle that lasts about 100 nanoseconds. Several such cycles occur per second, collectively making up a quantum program.

Another challenge for quantum computing is to get electronics inside the refrigerators. All operations are performed at very low temperatures, but then the result has to be taken up to room temperature to be read out. Wires are needed to start a program and to read results. The problem is that electrical wires generate heat.

This means that quantum computing lends itself only to programs where the results are not read out until the end one of many reasons interactive application such as Microsoft Excel will never be appropriate for the quantum paradigm.

It also means that every qubit needs at least one control line and then one readout line. Multiplexing can be used to reduce the number of readout lines, but there is still a lot of wiring per qubit. The chips themselves are not that large what takes up most space are all the wires and accompanying components. This makes it challenging to scale up refrigeration systems.

Since Bluefors supplies the cryogenic measurement infrastructure, we developed something we call a high-density solution, where we made it possible to have a six-fold increase in the amount of signal lines you can have in our system, says Gunnarsson. Now you can have up to 1,000 signal lines in a Bluefors state-of-the-art system using our current form factor.

One very recent innovation from Bluefors is a modular concept for cryostats, which is used by IBM. The idea is to combine modules and have information exchanged between them. This modular concept is going to be an interesting development, says Aalto Universitys Hakonen, who since the 1970s has enjoyed a front-row view of the development of quantum technology in Finland.

Finland has a very strong tradition in quantum theory in general and specifically, the quantum physics used in superconducting qubits, which is the platform used by IBM and Google. Now a large area of active research is in quantum algorithms.

How one goes about making a program is a key question, says Sabrina Maniscalco, professor of quantum information and logic at the University of Helsinki. Nowadays, the situation is such that programming quantum computing is much more quantum theory-related than any software ever managed or developed. We are not yet at a stage where a programming language exists that is independent of the device on which it runs. At the moment, quantum computers are really physics experiments.

Finland has long been renowned worldwide for its work in theoretical quantum physics, an area of expertise that plays nicely into the industry growing up around quantum computing. Two other factors that contribute to the growing ecosystem in Finland are the willingness of the government to invest in blue-sky research and the famed Finnish education system, which provides an excellent workforce for startups.

The countrys rich ecosystem of research, stable political support and the education system have resulted in the birth and growth of many startups that develop quantum algorithms. This seems like quite an achievement for a country of only five million inhabitants. But in many ways, Finlands small population is an advantage, creating a tight-knit group of experts, some of whom wear several different hats.

Maniscalco is a case in point. In addition to her research into quantum algorithms at the University of Helsinki, she is also CEO of quantum software startup Algorithmiq, which is focused on developing quantum software for life sciences.

We are trying to make quantum computers more like standard computers, but its still at a very preliminary stage Sabrina Maniscalco, University of Helsinki

As a researcher, I am first of all a theorist, she says. I dont get involved in building hardware, but I have a group of several people developing software. Quantum software is as important as hardware nowadays because quantum computers work very differently from classical computers. Classical software doesnt work at all on quantum systems. You have to completely change the way you program computers if you want to use a quantum computer.

We are trying to make quantum computers more like standard computers, but its still at a very preliminary stage. To program a quantum computer, you need quantum physicists who work with computer scientists, and experts in the application domain for example, quantum chemists. You have to start by creating specific instructions that make sense in terms of the physics experiments that quantum computers are today.

Algorithm developers need to take into account the type of quantum computer they are using the two leading types are superconducting qubits and trapped ions. Then they have to look at the quality of the qubits. They also need to know something about quantum information theory, and about the noise and imperfections that affect the qubits the building blocks of quantum computers.

Conventional computers use error correction, says Maniscalco. Thanks to error correction, the results of the computations that are performed inside your laptop or any computer are reliable. Nothing similar currently exists with quantum computers. A lot of people are currently trying to develop a quantum version of these error correction schemes, but they dont exist yet. So you have to find other strategies to counter this noise and the resulting errors.

Overcoming the noisiness of the current generation of qubits is one of many challenges standing in the way of practical quantum computers. Once those barriers are lifted, the work Maniscalco and other researchers in Finland are doing on quantum algorithms will certainly have an impact around the world.

Read this article:

Finland brings cryostats and other cool things to quantum computing - ComputerWeekly.com

Experts have been warning of something called the quantum apocalypse the point when quantum computers become a reality and render most methods of internet encryption useless.

Boris Johnson promised in November that the UK would go big on quantum computing a new and more powerful way of processing information, based on quantum physics. If you imagine a standard computer to be like a horse and cart, then a quantum computer is more like a sports car a huge leap forward, explained the BBC.

The UK is aiming to secure 50% of the global quantum computing market by 2040, said The Guardian, by investing in the National Quantum Computing Centre in Harwell, Oxfordshire. But the US and China have already taken huge steps to revolutionise research in the field, with the Americans achieving a dramatic lead in quantum computing patents, said Scientific American.

A leaked Google research paper published in 2019 suggested that a computer designed by the tech giant had achieved quantum supremacy defined by The Independent as the ability to perform a calculation that was far beyond the reach of todays most powerful supercomputers.

The paper said that Googles 72-qubit computer took just 200 seconds to perform a calculation that would have taken a supercomputer around 10,000 years to complete.

There is hope that the sophistication of quantum computers could enable scientists to design new chemicals, paving the way for advanced medicines and materials. It could also help weather forecasts and stock trades, and even combat global heating.

Quantum computing gives us a way to model nature better, said Jay Gambetta, a vice-president of quantum computing at IBM, which boasts the worlds most powerful quantum processor.

However, there is also what the BBC has described as a dark side to quantum computing. Current computers would take years, decades and even centuries to crack the encryption codes created by todays machines, but the fact that a quantum computer could theoretically do this in just seconds poses an enormous cybersecurity risk.

The notion of all the worlds most encrypted files from WhatsApp messages to online banking to government data suddenly being broken into thanks to the advent of quantum computing is known as the quantum apocalypse.

The quantum apocalypse could also mark the end of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, as it would make the blockchain network which is considered to be pretty much hack-proof insecure. UK cybersecurity firm Post Quantum has said that if measures are not put in place, then bitcoin will expire the very day the first quantum computer appears.

The quantum apocalypse isnt a problem that can be left to the next generation to solve. Tim Callan, chief compliance officer at cybersecurity firm Sectigo, warned The Independent that quantum computers could reach the point of defeating our current encryption systems within the next 10 or 15 years.

When that happens, our modern systems of finance, commerce, communication, transportation, manufacturing, energy, government, and healthcare will for all intents and purposes cease to function, he added.

This prognosis was echoed in a BBC interview with Ilyas Khan, chief executive of the Cambridge and Colorado-based company Quantinuum. Quantum computers will render useless most existing methods of encryption, he said. They are a threat to our way of life.

But its not all doom and gloom. As data scientists make advances in the world of quantum computing, theyre also working to create quantum-resistant algorithms to protect our digital footprints.

In the UK, all top secret government data has already been classified as post-quantum, said the BBC. This means that it uses new forms of encryption that scientists believe will standup to quantum computers.

If we werent doing anything to combat [the quantum apocalypse] then bad things would happen, an unnamed Whitehall official told the broadcaster.

None of this comes cheap. The UK has invested millions into the industry over the last few years and that amount is only going to rise. But if you listen to the experts, the consequences of the quantum apocalypse could be so catastrophic that advancing our current systems of encryption is most definitely money well spent.

See the article here:

What is the quantum apocalypse? - The Week UK

image:BECCAL logo view more

Credit: BECCAL

In early December 2021, the project "Development of a laser system for experiments with Bose-Einstein condensates on the International Space Station within the BECCAL payload (BECCAL-II)" commenced, with the involvement of a team of researchers led by Professor Patrick Windpassinger and Dr. Andr Wenzlawski from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU). In collaboration with Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, the Ferdinand-Braun-Institut (FBH) and Universitt Hamburg, the researchers will develop a laser system for the BECCAL experiment to study ultracold atoms on board the International Space Station (ISS).

The BECCAL experiment is a multi-user platform that will be open to numerous national and international scientists to test their ideas in practice. The platform will enable them to conduct a wide range of experiments in fields such as quantum sensing, quantum information, and quantum optics.

Transport of the BECCAL payload to ISS scheduled for early 2026

The ISS offers a unique combination of weightlessness, accessibility, and a large number of experiments. This will make it possible, among other things, to carry out high-precision experiments such as testing Einsteins equivalence principle. "Ideally, the experiments require the ultracold atom cloud to be completely free of any forces. Weightlessness permits such conditions," said Dr. Andr Wenzlawski from the Windpassinger group at Mainz University.

The BECCAL experiment is a successor to the CAL project, which has conducted numerous experiments aboard the ISS since 2018. BECCAL is intended to enhance the experimental capabilities on board the ISS, especially in the fields of precision atomic interferometry and the manipulation of atoms with detuned optical fields. An additional improvement of the overall performance is being sought by the implementation of new technological approaches to preparing atomic ensembles. The payload is scheduled for launch in early 2026 and will directly replace the CAL apparatus in the ISS Destiny module.

In the subproject, which is funded with EUR 3.4 million, the group led by Professor Patrick Windpassinger from the Institute of Physics at JGU will work together with Universitt Hamburg to develop and realize a Zerodur-based optical splitting and switching system and implement it into the BECCAL payload. These developments will draw on the findings of numerous previous experiments conducted in microgravity conditions, such as MAIUS, QUANTUS, and KALEXUS, in all of which JGU participated. "These experiments have allowed us to lay the technological foundations for running such an extremely complex experiment as well as to perform initial fundamental tests on the feasibility of the envisaged experiments," said Wenzlawski.

The robust laser modules necessary for the experiment are being supplied by the FBH, which is currently manufacturing 55 of the narrow-band laser sources. Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin is coordinating the integration of these laser modules along with the optical beam splitting and switching benches into a compact overall system. The project is being financed by the German Space Agency of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) with funding from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, following a resolution by the German Bundestag.

Related links:https://www.qoqi.physik.uni-mainz.de/ Experimental Quantum Optics and Quantum Information research group at the JGU Institute of Physics ;https://www.dlr.de/qt/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-13511/23496_read-54021/ Bose Einstein Condensate and Cold Atom Laboratory (BECCAL) ;https://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/en/qom Optical Metrology group at Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin ;https://www.fbh-berlin.de/en/research/quantum-technology/quantum-photonic-components/fundamental-physics Integrated quantum technology group at Ferdinand-Braun-Institut gGmbH

Read more:https://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/13342_ENG_HTML.php press release "Atom interferometry demonstrated in space for the first time" (13 April 2021) ;https://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/6645_ENG_HTML.php press release "Bose-Einstein condensate generated in space for the first time" (31 Oct. 2018) ;https://www.magazin.uni-mainz.de/8106_ENG_HTML.php JGU MAGAZINE: "Pioneering measurements in space" (17 Feb. 2017) ;https://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/260_ENG_HTML.php press release "Experiment involving ultracold rubidium lifts off with research rocket" (2 Feb. 2017)

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Read more:

Collaborative research project on quantum technology starts on the International Space Station - EurekAlert