He listed making at least tens of thousands of functional quantum bits (qubits) with low error rates, qubit interconnection, and multiple quantum cores connections as top problems for every provider.īreaking existing encryption systems in a relatively short time requires tens of thousands to millions of qubits, but today’s largest quantum computing systems only have low-hundreds qubits, Sutor pointed out in his talk. Well, I guess this shows why it's so important to publish the raw data as supplementary material along with the article.Building “big enough” quantum computers is a big engineering challenge with numerous constraints, ColdQuanta VP Bob Sutor noted during this week’s Inside Quantum Technology event. So from an outside perspective this doesn't look good at all for the authors. I'm sure if they had marked the missing curves with a placeholder the reviewers would've noticed immediately and this article would probably not have been published. Just cropping your graph (which also makes most labels on the X axis invalid) is just insane, they hammer that into your head during the first undergrad lab classes already. If you do a series of IV curves at equidistant points you cannot simply cut out the data you don't like, and if you do remove irrelevant data points (again, you probably shouldn't) you need to replace them with a placeholder value such as a black background to make it immediately clear that you left out some data. I did my PhD in a similar field (superconducting quantum computing) and if I had cut data from a graph like that I would've gotten a really strong reprimand from my supervisors. It's at least hard to imagine how Kouwenhoven or anyone in his group could not have found this highly problematic. Oh wow, looking at their graph and the portion they cut out for "aesthetic reasons" this looks almost like fraud to me. Apart from the 1976 budget, the rest just seem to be made up, and the end dates seem arbitrary. Very unclear where these predictions and budget numbers come from. If everything goes to plan, ITER will pave the way for another reactor, called DEMO, which will expand the technologies perfected by ITER to an industrial scale, and hopefully prove that nuclear fusion is a viable source of energy. Those figures quickly changed to €15 billion and 2019, but confidence in those numbers has eroded over the years.Īnd yet the timeline just for ITER to do an experimental run is still 10 years, and then: The project was officially begun in 2006 with an estimated cost of €5 billion and date for the beginning of operations-or first plasma-in 2016. ITER was initially budgeted €5 billion which was provided, then jumped to €15 billion, which was also provided: > People's expectations about a faster fusion timeline were always based on funding that never manifested. Issues with component construction and design disagreements have been blamed for the delays. ![]() When ITER first received formal approval in 2006, it was slated to first achieve fusion in 2016, a date which has since been pushed back at least 10 years. ITER was supposed to achieve fusion in 2016, but that has now been delayed until 2026:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |