filmov
tv
Breaking encryption with 100x less qubits? #quantumcomputing #encryption #security
![preview_player](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4WCE-TNgwVc/maxresdefault.jpg)
Показать описание
Quantum, we’re so back in 2023. This is theory, but it’s exciting for these reasons ⬇
The model has promising results, reducing the estimated numbers to elliptic curve discrete logarithm computation can be achieved with 126,000 cat qubits in 9 hours and 350,000 cat qubits in 4 days. This is still beyond our current capabilities! The model is also assumes a lot underlining hardware assumptions and quality. There was assumed infinite memory lifetime, and certain levels of physical noise, logical error rate. As I say, we need to build the machines! But in the end, the scientists in quantum computing, in theory and experiment, are pretty intrigued by the result. These are not WILD estimates, just we aren’t there yet.
And scientists and engineers are working on both sides of the problem. Hardware scaling and qubit fidelity, as well as the error correction and algorithmic ends. At some point, they will meet in the middle!
BTQ’s QByte Quantum Risk Calculator tracks qubit counts and quantum infidelity, too, if you want to check on progress on the hardware end.
Alice & Bob, a collaborator on the paper, wrote a blog post about the results, which I recommend reading. But I like the summary in the end on impact:
“For this reason, I believe the obtained numbers should not be interpreted as the ultimate goal of the hardware effort but rather, illustrate how concatenated cat codes may reduce drastically the engineering challenge.”
After some dead time in quantum, a lot of new results are coming.
The model has promising results, reducing the estimated numbers to elliptic curve discrete logarithm computation can be achieved with 126,000 cat qubits in 9 hours and 350,000 cat qubits in 4 days. This is still beyond our current capabilities! The model is also assumes a lot underlining hardware assumptions and quality. There was assumed infinite memory lifetime, and certain levels of physical noise, logical error rate. As I say, we need to build the machines! But in the end, the scientists in quantum computing, in theory and experiment, are pretty intrigued by the result. These are not WILD estimates, just we aren’t there yet.
And scientists and engineers are working on both sides of the problem. Hardware scaling and qubit fidelity, as well as the error correction and algorithmic ends. At some point, they will meet in the middle!
BTQ’s QByte Quantum Risk Calculator tracks qubit counts and quantum infidelity, too, if you want to check on progress on the hardware end.
Alice & Bob, a collaborator on the paper, wrote a blog post about the results, which I recommend reading. But I like the summary in the end on impact:
“For this reason, I believe the obtained numbers should not be interpreted as the ultimate goal of the hardware effort but rather, illustrate how concatenated cat codes may reduce drastically the engineering challenge.”
After some dead time in quantum, a lot of new results are coming.
Комментарии