A Seminar On

“QUANTUM SUPERMECY”

For the Partial Fulfilment of the Award of the Degree of Bachelor of Computer
Application of Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, surat

Bachelor of Computer Application [B.C.A]

Semester – VI

By

tiwari chandan ramchandra Exam No[ 0000 ]

Guided By
Mr. Minesh Mistry

DEVIBA INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER APPLICATON, SABARGAM

Year : 2018-2019

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 1/33

 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................

1.1. BRIEF IDEA ..................................................................................................

1.2. DIFFERENCE IN TECHNOLOGY? .….......................................................

2. HISTORY OF QUANTUM SUPERMECY ..............................................................

3. COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY …....................................................................

4. DEEP LEARNING ABOUT SUPERMECY …..........................................................

5. POTENTIAL APPLICATION …................................................................................

5.1. CRYPTOGRAPHY …....................................................................................
5.2. QUANTUM SEARCH ….............................................................................
5.3. QUANTUM SIMULATION …....................................................................
5.4. QUANTUM ANNEALING ….....................................................................
5.5. SOLVING LINEAR EQUATIONS ….........................................................

6. CONTRIBUTION IN TECHNOLOGY …...............................................................

6.1. IN BANKING ...….....................................................................................
6.2. IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE..............................................................
6.3. IN SCIENCE …............................................................................................

7. SYCAMORE PROCESSOR .................................................................................

8. QUNATUM OPERATIONS .................................................................................

9. VISION OF SUPERMECY …...................................................................................

10. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS …................................................................

11. QUANTUM COMPUTING VS TRADITIONAL COMPUTING...........................

12. CONCLUSION …......................................................................................................

13. REFERENCES ….......................................................................................................

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 2/33

1. INTRODUCTION :-

1.1. BREIF IDEA :-

In quantum computing, quantum supremacy is the goal of demonstrating that a

programmable quantum device can solve a problem that classical computers practically
cannot (irrespective of the usefulness of the problem) The term quantum eclipse is also
suggested by Kevin Tian and Ewin Tang. By comparison, the weaker quantum advantage is
the demonstration that a quantum device can solve a problem merely faster than classical
computers. Conceptually, this goal involves both the engineering task of building a powerful
quantum computer and the computational-complexity-theoretic task of finding a problem that
can be solved with current technology and has a believed superpolynomial speedup over the
best known or possible classical algorithm for that task. The term was originally popularized
by John Preskill but the concept of a quantum computational advantage, specifically for
simulating quantum systems, dates back to Yuri Manin's (1980) and Richard Feynman's
(1981) proposals of quantum computing.
Quantum computing is the use of quantum-mechanical phenomena such as
superposition and entanglement to perform computation. A quantum computer is used to
perform such computation, which can be implemented theoretically or physically. There are
currently two main approaches to physically implementing a quantum computer: analog and
digital. Analog approaches are further divided into quantum simulation, quantum annealing,

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 3/33

and adiabatic quantum computation. Digital quantum computers use quantum logic gates to
do computation. Both approaches use quantum bits or qubits.

Quantum computer based on superconducting qubits developed by IBM Research in Zürich,

Switzerland. The device shown here will be inserted into a dilution refrigerator and cooled to
under 1 kelvin.

In a classical computer, bits that carry information represent either a 1 or a 0; but

quantum bits, or qubits—which take the form of subatomic particles such as photons and
electrons—can be in a kind of combination of 1 and 0 at the same time, a state known as
“superposition.” Unlike bits, qubits can also influence one another through a phenomenon
known as “entanglement,” which baffled even Einstein, who called it “spooky action at a
distance.

1.2. DIFFERENCE IN TECHNOLOGY :-

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 4/33

 Like factoring integers, sampling the output distributions of random quantum
circuits is believed to be hard for classical computers based on reasonable complexity
assumptions. Google previously announced plans to demonstrate quantum supremacy
before the end of 2017 by solving this problem with an array of 49 superconducting qubits.

Until now, research groups have been able to reproduce the results of quantum machines
with around 40 qubits on classical systems. Google’s Sycamore processor, which harnessed
53 qubits for the experiment, suggests that such emulation has reached its limits. “We’re
entering an era where exploring what a quantum computer can do will now require a physical
quantum computer … You won’t be able to credibly reproduce results anymore on a
conventional emulator,” explains Simon Benjamin, a quantum researcher at the University of
Oxford.
Quantum supermacy using 52 bit sycamore processor that is able to do fast computatio.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 5/33

2. HISTORY OF QUANTUM SUPERMECY :-

The term quantum supremacy was originally coined in 2012 by John Preskill, a
theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology. The term was a generic
definition to describe the point where quantum computers could do things unachievable by
classical computers. The term was immediately embraced by the quantum community but
different experts developed different theories of what it practically meant.

In early January 2018, Intel announced a similar hardware program. In October 2017, IBM
demonstrated the simulation of 56 qubits on a conventional supercomputer, increasing the
number of qubits needed for quantum supremacy. In November 2018, Google announced a
partnership with NASA that would “analyze results from quantum circuits run on Google

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 6/33

quantum processors, and... provide comparisons with classical simulation to both support
Google in validating its hardware and establish a baseline for quantum supremacy.”
Theoretical work published in 2018 suggests that quantum supremacy should be possible
with a "two-dimensional lattice of 7x7 qubits and around 40 clock cycles" if error rates can be
pushed low enough. On June 18, 2019, Quanta Magazine suggested that quantum
supremacy could happen in 2019, according to Neven's law. On September 20, 2019,
the Financial Times reported that "Google claims to have reached quantum supremacy with
an array of 54 qubits out of which 53 were functional, which were used to perform a series of
operations in 200 seconds that would take a supercomputer about 10,000 years to
complete". On October 23, Google officially confirmed the claims. IBM responded by
suggesting some of the claims are excessive, and suggested that it could take 2.5 days
instead of 10,000 years.

3. COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY :-

Complexity arguments concern how the amount of some resource needed to solve a
problem scales with the size of the input to that problem. As an extension of classical
computational complexity theory, quantum complexity theory is about what a working,
universal quantum computer could accomplish without necessarily accounting for the
difficulty of building one or dealing with decoherence and noise. Since quantum information
is a generalization of classical information, it is clear that a quantum computer can efficiently
simulate any classical algorithm.

The complexity class of bounded-error quantum polynomial time (BQP) problems is the class
of decision problems that can be solved in polynomial time by a universal quantum
computer. It is related to important classical complexity classes by the hierarchy. Whether
any of these containments is proper is still an open question.

The difficulty of proving what cannot be done with classical computing is a common problem
in definitively demonstrating quantum supremacy. Contrary to decision problems that require
yes or no answers, sampling problems ask for samples from probability distributions. If there
is a classical algorithm that can efficiently sample from the output of an arbitrary quantum
circuit, the polynomial hierarchy would collapse to the third level, which is considered very

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 7/33

unlikely. Boson sampling is a more specific proposal, the classical hardness of which
depends upon the intractability of calculating the permanent of a large matrix with complex
entries, which is a #P-complete problem. The arguments used to reach this conclusion have
also been extended to IQP Sampling, where only the conjecture that the average- and worst-
case complexities of the problem are the same is needed.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 8/33

4. DEEP LEARNING ABOUT SUPERMECY :-

Last week, Google sparked controversy in the scientific community by claiming

that it has achieved the anticipated milestone known as quantum supremacy. In a paper
published in Nature, Google described the experiments conducted on a new quantum
machine, code named Sycamore, which proof the famous benchmark. It only took a few
hours for IBM, Google’s archrival in the race towards quantum dominance, to publish a paper
refuting Google’s claims sparking a passionate debate within the computer science
community. Despite the controversy surrounding Google’s claims, there is no doubt that the
release of Sycamore represents a major milestone to demonstrate the viability of quantum
systems and it has profound ramifications across other technology fields. In the case of
artificial intelligence(AI), there has been a lot of speculation in terms of how the advent of
quantum computing will affect AI programs. However, not many people think about how AI
can influence the development of quantum computing. Today, I would like to explore that
thesis in more detail from the perspective of quantum supremacy argument.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 9/33

The target experiment focused on performing a specialized computation known as “random
circuit sampling” in fast polynomial time. To describe the experiment, imagine that we could
compose quantum algorithms from a small dictionary of elementary gate operations. Since
each gate has a probability of error, we would want to limit themselves to a modest
sequence with about a thousand total gates. Assuming these programmers have no prior
experience, they might create what essentially looks like a random sequence of gates, which
one could think of as the “hello world” program for a quantum computer. Because there is no
structure in random circuits that classical algorithms can exploit, emulating such quantum
circuits typically takes an enormous amount of classical supercomputer effort. Each run of a
random quantum circuit on a quantum computer produces a bitstring, for example 0000101.
Finding the most likely bit-strings for a random quantum circuit on a classical computer
becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of qubits (width) and number of gate
cycles (depth) grow.

5. POTENTIAL APPLICATION :-

5.1 CRYPTOGRAPHY :-

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 10/33

 Integer factorization, which underpins the security of public key cryptographic
systems, is believed to be computationally infeasible with an ordinary computer for large
integers if they are the product of few prime numbers (e.g., products of two 300-digit primes).
By comparison, a quantum computer could efficiently solve this problem using Shor's
algorithm to find its factors. This ability would allow a quantum computer to break many of
the cryptographic systems in use today, in the sense that there would be a polynomial time
(in the number of digits of the integer) algorithm for solving the problem. In particular, most of
the popular public key ciphers are based on the difficulty of factoring integers or the discrete
logarithm problem, both of which can be solved by Shor's algorithm. In particular, the RSA,
Diffie–Hellman, and elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman algorithms could be broken. These are used
to protect secure Web pages, encrypted email, and many other types of data. Breaking these
would have significant ramifications for electronic privacy and security.

However, other cryptographic algorithms do not appear to be broken by those algorithms.

Some public-key algorithms are based on problems other than the integer factorization and
discrete logarithm problems to which Shor's algorithm applies, like the McEliece
cryptosystem based on a problem in coding theory. Lattice-based cryptosystems are also not
known to be broken by quantum computers, and finding a polynomial time algorithm for
solving the dihedral hidden subgroup problem, which would break many lattice based
cryptosystems, is a well-studied open problem. It has been proven that applying Grover's
algorithm to break a symmetric (secret key) algorithm by brute force requires time equal to
roughly 2n/2 invocations of the underlying cryptographic algorithm, compared with roughly
2n in the classical case, meaning that symmetric key lengths are effectively halved: AES-256
would have the same security against an attack using Grover's algorithm that AES-128 has
against classical brute-force search (see Key size).

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 11/33

 5.2 QUANTUM SEARCH :-

Besides factorization and discrete logarithms, quantum algorithms offering a

more than polynomial speedup over the best known classical algorithm have been found for
several problems, including the simulation of quantum physical processes from chemistry
and solid state physics, the approximation of Jones polynomials, and solving Pell's equation.
No mathematical proof has been found that shows that an equally fast classical algorithm
cannot be discovered, although this is considered unlikely. However, quantum computers
offer polynomial speedup for some problems. The most well-known example of this is
quantum database search, which can be solved by Grover's algorithm using quadratically
fewer queries to the database than that are required by classical algorithms. In this case, the
advantage is not only provable but also optimal, it has been shown that Grover's algorithm
gives the maximal possible probability of finding the desired element for any number of
oracle lookups. Several other examples of provable quantum speedups for query problems
have subsequently been discovered, such as for finding collisions in two-to-one functions
and evaluating NAND trees.

Problems that can be addressed with Grover's algorithm have the following properties:

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 12/33

There is no searchable structure in the collection of possible answers,The number of
possible answers to check is the same as the number of inputs to the algorithm, and There
exists a boolean function which evaluates each input and determines whether it is the correct
answer

For problems with all these properties, the running time of Grover's algorithm on a quantum
computer will scale as the square root of the number of inputs (or elements in the database),
as opposed to the linear scaling of classical algorithms. A general class of problems to which
Grover's algorithm can be applied is Boolean satisfiability problem. In this instance, the
database through which the algorithm is iterating is that of all possible answers. An example
(and possible) application of this is a password cracker that attempts to guess the password
or secret key for an encrypted file or system. Symmetric ciphers such as Triple DES and AES
are particularly vulnerable to this kind of attack.[citation needed] This application of quantum
computing is a major interest of government agencies.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 13/33

 5.3. QUANTUM SIMULATION :-

Since chemistry and nanotechnology rely on understanding quantum systems,

and such systems are impossible to simulate in an efficient manner classically, many believe
quantum simulation will be one of the most important applications of quantum computing.
Quantum simulation could also be used to simulate the behavior of atoms and particles at
unusual conditions such as the reactions inside a collider.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 14/33

 5.3. QUANTUM TUNNEALING :-

Quantum annealing or Adiabatic quantum computation relies on the adiabatic

theorem to undertake calculations. A system is placed in the ground state for a simple
Hamiltonian, which is slowly evolved to a more complicated Hamiltonian whose ground state
represents the solution to the problem in question. The adiabatic theorem states that if the
evolution is slow enough the system will stay in its ground state at all times through the
process.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 15/33

 5.3. SOLVING LINEAR EQUATIONS :-

Quantum annealing or Adiabatic quantum computation relies on the adiabatic

theorem to undertake calculations. A system is placed in the ground state for a simple
Hamiltonian, which is slowly evolved to a more complicated Hamiltonian whose ground state
represents the solution to the problem in question. The adiabatic theorem states that if the
evolution is slow enough the system will stay in its ground state at all times through the
process.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 16/33

6. CONTRIBUTION IN TECHNOLOGY :-

6.1. IN BANKING :-
Again, no. That’s a wild exaggeration. The Google paper makes clear that while
its team has been able to show quantum supremacy in a narrow sampling task, we’re still a
long way from developing a quantum computer capable of implementing Shor’s algorithm,
which was developed in the 1990s to help quantum machines factor massive numbers.
Today’s most popular encryption methods can be broken only by factoring such numbers—a
task that would take conventional machines many thousands of years.

But this quantum gap shouldn’t be cause for complacency, because things like financial and
health records that are going to be kept for decades could eventually become vulnerable to
hackers with a machine capable of running a code-busting algorithm like Shor’s.
Researchers are already hard at work on novel encryption methods that will be able to
withstand such attacks (see our explainer on post-quantum cryptography for more details).

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 17/33

 6.2. IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE :-

Applying the quantum supremacy argument to AI, we can intuitively assume that the advent
of quantum computing will enable the creation of new neural network paradigms that are
impossible today. However, recent developments in AI are also influencing the evolution of
quantum technologies.

Quantum neural networks(QNN) is an emerging deep learning paradigm that promotes the
creation of neural networks that can run on quantum computing architectures. The work on
QNNs is still very nascent but we are already seeing some interesting developments.

In a recent paper titled “Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term
Processors”, Google proposed a QNN model focused on classification tasks. The
architecture of a QNN contrasts with traditional deep neural networks. Instead of hidden
layers, a QNN will be formed by entangling actions, or “quantum gates”, on qubits.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 18/33

 6.3. IN SCIENCE :-

Quantum supermecy can be used in science are for better performance as laboratory
research , space science , and many more where a classical computer done the same task
in long time . Supermecy will be able to do the same task in few seconds.

Following are some example of using of classical computer's in multiple area :-

Physics, biology, chemistry, neuroscience, genetics, even sociology and anthropology

depend heavily on computers. Increasingly, experiments are done "in silica", that is, by
developing and experimenting with models of real systems rather than the systems
themselves.

Microsoft researchers have developed a tool that can analyze CT scans and locate organs
and provide both 2D and 3D views of the organ. These images can be matched to previous
scans to help detect changes in the organ.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 19/33

Researchers at Anna University in India are using fuzzy logic and neural networks to help
identify people at high risk for cardiovascular disease.

A team of researchers led by Klaus Schulten (from the Department of Physics, U. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign) and Thanh Truong (Department of Chemistry, U. of Utah) have been
using high performance computers to look inside the flu virus and study how antiviral
medications interact with its proteins.

Computer models are used to study the spread of disease and to help officials decide when
to close schools to prevent further spread.

Researchers at Duke University have developed software to help redesign drugs to combat
drug-resistant germs much more quickly than is possible using laboratory experimentation.
Researchers at Georgia Tech's School of Interactive Computing have developed Surmgen,
software that allows cardiac surgeons to manipulate a 3D model of a pediatric patient's heart
when planning surgery.

University of Bristol researchers Tilo Burghardt and Peter Barham are using a remote-control
camera and automatic image analysis to study penguins on Robben Island, South Africa.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 20/33

7. SYCAMORE PROCESSOR :-

The quantum supremacy experiment was run on a fully programmable 54-qubit

processor named “Sycamore.” It’s comprised of a two-dimensional grid where each qubit is
connected to four other qubits. As a consequence, the chip has enough connectivity that the
qubit states quickly interact throughout the entire processor, making the overall state
impossible to emulate efficiently with a classical computer.

The success of the quantum supremacy experiment was due to our improved two-qubit
gates with enhanced parallelism that reliably achieve record performance, even when
operating many gates simultaneously. We achieved this performance using a new type of
control knob that is able to turn off interactions between neighboring qubits. This greatly
reduces the errors in such a multi-connected qubit system. We made further performance
gains by optimizing the chip design to lower crosstalk, and by developing new control
calibrations that avoid qubit defects.

We designed the circuit in a two-dimensional square grid, with each qubit connected to four
other qubits.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 21/33

This architecture is also forward compatible for the implementation of quantum error-
correction. We see our 54-qubit Sycamore processor as the first in a series of ever more
powerful quantum processors.

The Sycamore quantum computer is fully programmable and can run general-purpose
quantum algorithms. Since achieving quantum supremacy results last spring, our team has
already been working on near-term applications, including quantum physics simulation and
quantum chemistry, as well as new applications in generative machine learning, among other
areas.

We also now have the first widely useful quantum algorithm for computer science
applications: certifiable quantum randomness. Randomness is an important resource in
computer science, and quantum randomness is the gold standard, especially if the numbers
can be self-checked (certified) to come from a quantum computer. Testing of this algorithm is
ongoing, and in the coming months we plan to implement it in a prototype that can provide
certifiable random numbers.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 22/33

8. QUNATUM OPERATIONS :-

The prevailing model of quantum computation describes the computation in

terms of a network of quantum logic gates.

A memory consisting of n bits of information has 2^n possible states. A vector representing
all memory states thus has 2^n entries (one for each state). This vector is viewed as a
probability vector and represents the fact that the memory is to be found in a particular state.

In the classical view, one entry would have a value of 1 (i.e. a 100% probability of being in
this state) and all other entries would be zero. In quantum mechanics, probability vectors are
generalized to density operators. This is the technically rigorous mathematical foundation for
quantum logic gates, but the intermediate quantum state vector formalism is usually
introduced first because it is conceptually simpler. This article focuses on the quantum state
vector formalism for simplicity.

We begin by considering a simple memory consisting of only one bit. This memory may be
found in one of two states: the zero state or the one state. We may represent the state of this
memory using Dirac notation so that

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 23/33

The Turing machine, developed by Alan Turing in the 1930s, is a theoretical device that
consists of tape of unlimited length that is divided into little squares. Each square can either
hold a symbol (1 or 0) or be left blank. A read-write device reads these symbols and blanks,
which gives the machine its instructions to perform a certain program. Does this sound
familiar? Well, in a quantum Turing machine, the difference is that the tape exists in a
quantum state, as does the read-write head. This means that the symbols on the tape can be
either 0 or 1 or a superposition of 0 and 1; in other words the symbols are both 0 and 1 (and
all points in between) at the same time. While a normal Turing machine can only perform one
calculation at a time, a quantum Turing machine can perform many calculations at once.

Today's computers, like a Turing machine, work by manipulating bits that exist in one of two
states: a 0 or a 1. Quantum computers aren't limited to two states; they encode information
as quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in superposition. Qubits represent atoms, ions,
photons or electrons and their respective control devices that are working together to act as
computer memory and a processor. Because a quantum computer can contain these
multiple states simultaneously, it has the potential to be millions of times more powerful than
today's most powerful supercomputers.

This superposition of qubits is what gives quantum computers their inherent parallelism.
According to physicist David Deutsch, this parallelism allows a quantum computer to work on
a million computations at once, while your desktop PC works on one. A 30-qubit quantum
computer would equal the processing power of a conventional computer that could run at 10
teraflops (trillions of floating-point operations per second). Today's typical desktop computers
run at speeds measured in gigaflops (billions of floating-point operations per second).

Quantum computers also utilize another aspect of quantum mechanics known as

entanglement. One problem with the idea of quantum computers is that if you try to look at
the subatomic particles, you could bump them, and thereby change their value. If you look at
a qubit in superposition to determine its value, the qubit will assume the value of either 0 or

1, but not both (effectively turning your spiffy quantum computer into a mundane digital
computer). To make a practical quantum computer, scientists have to devise ways of making
measurements indirectly to preserve the system's integrity. Entanglement provides a
potential answer. In quantum physics, if you apply an outside force to two atoms, it can

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 24/33

cause them to become entangled, and the second atom can take on the properties of the
first atom. So if left alone, an atom will spin in all directions. The instant it is disturbed it
chooses one spin, or one value; and at the same time, the second entangled atom will
choose an opposite spin, or value. This allows scientists to know the value of the qubits
without actually looking at them.

QUBIT CONTROL :-
Computer scientists control the microscopic particles that act as qubits in quantum
computers by using control devices.
• Ion traps :- use optical or magnetic fields (or a combination of both) to trap ions.
• Optical traps :- use light waves to trap and control particles.
• Quantum dots :- are made of semiconductor material and are used to contain and
manipulate electrons.
• Semiconductor impurities :- contain electrons by using "unwanted" atoms found in
semiconductor material.
• Superconducting circuits :- allow electrons to flow with almost no resistance at
very low temperatures.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 25/33

9. VISION OF SUPERMECY :-

In simple terms, Google and its affiliated University researchers built a chip called
Sycamore and wired it into a massive exoskeleton that allowed it to run at super-cooled
temperatures, and execute programs — called circuits — loaded from a control computer.
Then they programmed the 53 (working) qubits of the computer randomly, using both single
and two-qubit gates (operations). Finally, they ran the random circuit (program) a million
times and recorded the outputs. They were able to do that in about 200 seconds. By their
estimation, simulating this process on Summit, a uniquely powerful classical supercomputer,
would take 10,000 years.

On the surface, that sounds like the sort of thing any geek with a 53-bit quantum computer
laying around (like at IBM for example) could knock off in a weekend. But Google
accomplished two other things that make its achievement unique. First, they were able to
control errors in their system — a notoriously hard issue with quantum computers —
sufficiently well that their outputs came quite close to the theoretical results. Second, they did
the math and simulation at smaller bit lengths to be fairly sure that their error estimates were
realistic. That’s key because there isn’t currently any way to verify their full 53-bit results on a
traditional computer.

I’m reminded a bit of the coverage of the DARPA autonomous vehicle challenges 15 years
ago. It was easy to believe that self-driving cars were just around the corner. Similarly, the
fact that a quantum computer complex enough to be hard to simulate can be built is only a
small — but very expensive and impressive — step in getting to a quantum computer that
can be used to solve practical problems like molecular simulations, or dangerous ones like
key cracking. What isn’t clear is whether we are on a truly long slog, similar to the one to
create self-driving cars, or whether there are going to be some shortcuts. For example,
startup PsiQ believes it can harness photonics to build a commercially viable quantum
computer much sooner than competitors using more common approaches.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 26/33

10. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS :-

10.1. ADVANTAGES :-

The principal advantage of quantum computing is the prospect of quantum

supremacy where quantum computers would be able to solve important NP-complete real-
world computing problems in polynomial time.

Quantum computers can solve many complex problems in a quantum mechanism. In order
to solve the same problem, the latest modern computer takes hundreds of thousands of
years. This is what is called quantum matchless quality. That is, when an organization or a
country can solve those complex problems in a very short time through quantum computers,
it will be said that they have achieved quantum supremacy

The most important property of NP-complete problems is that they do not scale with size i.e.
they cannot be solved even for relatively small sizes with all the computing power in the
history of the world, provided that P≠NP.

The question of P≠NP is the most important open question in Computer Science,
representing the question if a non-deterministic computing (in general form of non-
deterministic Turing machines) can be reduced to polynomial time.

So quantum computing is offering us a glimpse of the promise that NP can be reduced to P

by quantum computers.

Researchers have been trying to build quantum computers for decades. Researchers have
promised that such a computer will be far ahead of the speed.
Commercial algorithms of financial institutions can be further improved.
Even the early forms of artificial intelligence that scientists are working on can be improved
soon.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 27/33

 10.2. DISADVANTAGES :-

The principal disadvantage of quantum computers is how incredibly hard it is to

program them. The conventional programming as a scientific discipline has been hard
enough, gaining status and prominence as a new branch of mathematics in the last 60 or so
years. It spawned programming languages including both theory and practice as well as
many other subjects such as e.g. theoretical computer science.

But the level of difficulty in programming conventional computers is almost nothing compared
to the incredible complexity of programming and understanding quantum computers. One
can certainly say that we are very early in the nascent era of quantum computing and that is
why we find programming them so hard. But we had much clearer picture at the advent of
conventional computers such as in e.g. programming languages where the basic ideas were
developed very early, in 1950s and 1960s.

There is no clarity at all in quantum programming as we are currently completely stumped by

even the most fundamental concepts such as e.g. quantum phase. Its use and manipulation
is at the core of all quantum algorithms but nobody understands what it really is, including
the top quantum computing experts and scientists.

The steepness of the learning curve in quantum programming is unprecedented, something

we have never seen so far. It is still an open question if we will ever be able to successfully
scale it and start programming quantum computers with any degree of speed and efficiency.

British economist The Economist says quantum computers will be able to do whatever they
want in the company. The personal information of billions of Internet users can be taken into
their own bags. The government database can be hacked. Undue control can be imposed on
the banking system. The state defense system can be turned off if desired. Considering
these aspects, many do not even hesitate to call it a “terrible” computer.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 28/33

11. QUANTUM COMPUTING VS TRADITIONAL COMPUTING :-

Traditional computers work on the basis of the laws of classical physics, specifically
by utilizing the flow of electricity. A quantum computer, on the other hand, seeks
to exploit the laws that govern the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles.

•Conventional computers process information in ‘bits’ or 1s and 0s, following classical

physics under which our computers can process a ‘1’ or a ‘0’ at a time.

•Quantum computers compute in ‘qubits’ (or quantum bits). They exploit the properties of
quantum mechanics, the science that governs how matter behaves on the atomic scale.

•In this scheme of things, processors can be a 1 and a 0 simultaneously, a state

called quantum superposition.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 29/33

•Because of quantum superposition, a quantum computer — if it works to plan — can mimic
several classical computers working in parallel.

•World's most powerful supercomputers today can juggle 148,000 trillion operations in
a second and requires about 9000 IBM CPUs connected in a particular combination to
achieve this feat.

•At that tiny scale, many laws of classical physics cease to apply, and the unique laws
of quantum physics come into play.

•Unlike classical physics, in which an object can exist in one place at one time, quantum
physics looks at the probabilities of an object being at different points. Existence in multiple
states is called superposition, and the relationships among these states is
called entanglement.

•The higher the number of qubits, the higher the amount of information stored in them.
Compared to the information stored in the same number of bits, the information in qubits
rises exponentially. That is what makes a quantum computer so powerful.

•Building reliable quantum hardware is challenging because of the difficulty of

controlling quantum systems accurately.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 30/33

12. CONCLUSION :-

Quantum supremacy refers to a quantum computer solving a problem that cannot be

expected of a classical computer in a normal lifetime.
It is natural to assume at that quantum supremacy is a universal proclamation that quantum
computers are better than classical computers. One might also conclude that the end is near
for our smartphones, encryption is no longer safe, and firms with quantum computers will
soon start crushing their competitors with techno voodoo. While I’m saying these things
tongue-in-cheek, many will naturally apply their understanding of digital or classical
computers to quantum computers and draw conclusions that simply aren’t true. I tell clients
that to understand quantum computing, you first need to forget what you know about today’s
computers. They simply don’t work like that or do the same things.

Foremost, classical computers are universal, which means they can solve almost any type of
problem we can express in terms of ones and zeros. Note I said “almost” any problem. There
are certain classes of problems on the frontiers of computer science theory that we can’t
practically solve with classical computers. Enter quantum computers that, in theory, could
solve some of these. This means that quantum computers won’t replace today’s computers
— they will work alongside them to eventually solve real-world, useful problems. For
example, quantum computers will likely help model far more complex molecular states of
materials in chemical processes. Big deal? You bet, because there are new drugs, new types
of electric batteries, new products to be made, and so on waiting to be discovered if we had
a working quantum computer — enter the supremacy debate.

12.1. What’s Next For Quantum Computing? :-

For anyone used to thinking of bit depth in conventional computing terms, 53

bits sounds pretty impressive. After all, it is more than the 32 bits we’ve lived with until
recently. Except in quantum computing, those bits represent the total capacity of all the
registers in a system. Those registers typically include not just all the qubits needed to
represent the input and output, but sets of registers to store intermediate results and make it
possible to run iterative algorithms. Even though qubits can contain a large amount of state
compared to conventional bits — thanks to superposition and entanglement — they are still
simply bits once you need to use their data.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 31/33

 12.2 Government's Initiative :-

In 2018, the Department of Science & Technology unveiled a programme called

Quantum-Enabled Science & Technology (QuEST) and committed to investing ₹80 crore
over the next three years to accelerate research.
The ostensible plan is to have a quantum computer built in India within the next decade.

12.3. Challenges Associated with Quantum Computing :-

The dark side of quantum computing is the disruptive effect that it can have on
cryptographic encryption, which secures communications and computers.
It might pose a challenge for the government also because if this technology goes into wrong
hands, all the government’s official and confidential data will be at a risk of being hacked and
misused.

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 32/33

13. REFERENCES :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy

https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/10/quantum-supremacy-using-programmable.html

https://towardsdatascience.com/about-googles-self-proclaimed-quantum-supremacy-and-its-impact-
on-artificial-intelligence-63cb12d96527

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614423/quantum-computing-and-quantum-supremacy/

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~blerner/Applications.html

https://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer1.htm

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/qubit

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forrester/2019/10/28/google-claims-quantum-supremacy-ibm-says-
nope-unpacking-whats-important/#4484b5395d9f

https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/quantum-supremacy-1

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-quantum-computing

https://medium.com/@davidmukul/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-quantum-computers-
56a0c4d3091b

A.C.C., M.I.B.M. & D.I.C.A., SABARGAM 33/33