Inching closer to scalable quantum computing

Today in my quantum cryptography class I was drawing parallels between the development of classical computers and their quantum counterparts.  I am of the opinion that there will need to be, in the language of Thomas Kuhn, some sort of paradigm shift that brings about some discovery that is a bit like the quantum computing analogue of the transistor (not necessarily in the specific logic-related sense, but rather in the scalability sense).  Apparently a group in Britain is inching closer to that goal (though they’re not quite there yet) having now developed an optical quantum controlled-NOT gate for processing individual photons that resides on a chip of silicon a few millimeters across.  The gate consists of six parallel silicon waveguides that are brought close enough together at certain points (less than a wavelength of the light passing through the guides) such that the photons can leak out in a process known as evanescence, thereby entangling two of the photons.

Previous optical quantum CNOT gates have required large lab benches consisting of beam splitters, mirrors, etc.  As such, this is one small but crucial step in the quest for scalable quantum computing.  There is some work to be done, of course, even on this particular setup.  For example, the photons only become entangled about 1/9 of the time.  Nonetheless, additional qubits can be used in an error correction scheme in order to clean up the results.

While I don’t want to get overly excited, we need to remember points such as this.  As an occasional historian of science, I would like to remind people that things like this often turn out to be crucial and it is fascinating to be able to say sometime down the road, “I remember when _____ happened back in…”


2 thoughts on “Inching closer to scalable quantum computing

Add yours

  1. ” There is some work to be done, of course, even on this particular setup. For example, the photons only become entangled about 1/9 of the time.”
    How you know they are entangled? Maybe just probabilistic acsident?

  2. Are you asking how the entanglement itself is measured or asking how they know the entanglement is due to their setup? Or are you asking whether they’re interpreting the results in a biased way? In any of those cases, one presumes they are using methods that are standard and well-accepted in the QI community. I’ve only read the news releases on it, but they wouldn’t (shouldn’t) have made it past peer-review if questions such as yours weren’t directly addressed.

Comment (obtuse, impolite, or otherwise "troll"-like comments may be deleted)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: