The New Quantum Era - innovation in quantum computing, science and technology

Welcome to another episode of The New Quantum Era Podcast hosted by Kevin Rowney and Sebastian Hassinger. Today, they are joined by an outstanding European researcher: Professor Leo Kouwenhoven.Leo is a professor in Applied Physics specialized in the field of Quantum NanoScience at TU Delft. Leo got his Ph.D. in Mesoscopic Physics at Delft. He was a postdoc researcher at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting professor at Harvard. Highlights in Leo’s career include the discovery of conductance quantization in quantum point contacts, Coulomb blockade in quantum dots, artificial atoms, the Kondo effect in quantum dots, Spin qubits, induced superconductivity in nanowires and nanotubes, spin-orbit qubits in nanowires and nanotubes and Majoranas in nanowires. Leo and his group found evidence of Majoranas detailed in a paper from 2012. He lead the Microsoft hardware R&D effort, working on topological qubits using Majorana zero modes from 2016 to 2022. His current focus at Delft is on topological effects in solid-state devices, such as the emergence of Majoranas and topological qubits.Key Takeaways:[2:53] Kevin and Sebastian share their appreciation about how quantum computing was represented in the episode Joan is Awful of the TV show Black Mirror. [6:04] Leo shares how he got interested in the field of quantum computing.[9:40] Leo discusses how much he knew about the work done in theoretical quantum computing in the mid to late 90s.[14:37] The advantage of superconducting qubits is that you have a large number of electrons in the circuit you are manipulating.[15:34] Measurability can be easier but “it always comes with a price”.[17:05] Leo admits the coherence was insufficient, and he shares how they tried to improve it.[19:15] What is the feature of silicon that makes it valuable for Quantum Computing?[22:12] Leo shares the benefits of a hybrid system (combining super connectivity and semi-connectors).[23:10] Leo discusses how he became interested in Majoranas.[27:30] Leo addresses the main research agenda destination regarding Majoranas.[28:22] Was the Majoranas fundamental particle found?[33:21] The potential for theory and application is so huge. What's Leo’s sense about the prospects for these avenues of inquiry research?[36:25] Leo explains the non-abelian property that Majoranas zero modes have.[40:18] Leo addresses the two groups of gate operations needed for universal computing.[41:22] Leo gives his opinion regarding the timeframe for the appearance of commercially viable outcomes in this domain. [47:16] Sebastian reflects on the maturation of the neutral atom systems, considering them as the first realization of Feynman's vision from 1981 regarding the fact that in order to simulate a natural system, there is a need for a quantum computer to do it.[48:08] Can we build machines that can help us simulate the dynamics of quantum systems that might help us understand more what the challenges are in Majorana Qubit? [51:01] Does Leo think there's any value in Majorana braiding simulations to try to understand the dynamics of the system or overcome the challenges?[53:50] There is room for optimism in Quantum Computing.[56:24] Leo talks about the dream of topological Majoranas qubit.  [58:16] Kevin and Sebastian share the highlights of an insightful conversation with Leo Kouwenhoven. Mentioned in this episode:Visit The New Quantum Era PodcastBlack Mirror: Joan is AwfulLearn more about Leo KouwenhovenSignatures of Majorana fermions in hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowire devicesTweetables and Quotes:“The advantage of the superconducting qubits is that you have a large number of electrons in the circuit you are manipulating, which can make measurability easier, but it always comes with a price.”— Leo Kouwenhoven“I read that making qubits was too much engineering when it should be something more fundamental… so now we think qubits are fundamental?!” — Leo Kouwenhoven“Problems are there to be solved; they only exist to be solved. People in classical electronics also solved all their problems, so why can’t we? ” — Leo Kouwenhoven

Description: Welcome to another episode of The New Quantum Era Podcast hosted by Kevin Rowney and Sebastian Hassinger. Today, they are joined by Scott Aaronson, who is a leading authority in the space of Quantum Computing, a fascinating person with a long list of relevant achievements. Scott is also the author of an outstanding blog called Shtetl-Optimize and a book named Quantum Computing Since Democritus.Scott helped design Google Quantum Supremacy, but his work exceeds it; he is involved in Complexity Theory and Computer Science and is just extremely good at connecting, explaining, and digging deeper into concepts.Key Takeaways:[3:38] How did Scott get into quantum computing?[11:35] Scott talks about the moment when the question arose: Does nature work this way?[14:28] Scott shares when he realized he wanted to dig deeper into Quantum Computing.[15:56] Scott remembers when he proved the limitation of quantum algorithms for a variation of Grover's search problem.[18:43] Scott realized that his competitive advantage was the ability to explain how things work.[20:01] Scott explains the collision problem.[21:33] Scott defines the birthday paradox.[23:24] Scott discusses the dividing line between serious and non-serious quantum computing research.[24:11]  What's Scott’s relative level of faith and optimism that the areas of topological quantum computing and measurement-based quantum computation are going to produce?[28:33] Scott talks about what he thinks will be the source of the first practical quantum speed-up. [31:55] Scott didn’t imagine that being a complexity theorist would become exponential.[36:14] Is Scott optimistic about quantum walks? [40:11] Has Scott returned to his machine learning and AI roots but is now trying to explain the concepts? [42:03] Scott was asked: ‘What is it going to take to get you to stop wasting your life on quantum computing?’[44:50] Scott talks about the future need to prevent  AI misuse. and his role in Open AI[47:41] Scott emphasizes the need for an external source that can point out your errors.[50:13] Scott shares his thoughts about the possible risks and misuses of GPT.[51:40] Scott made GPT to take a Quantum Computing exam; what did surprise him about the answers? It did much better on conceptual questions than on calculation questions[55:55] What kind of validation will we be able to give GPT?[56:22] Scott explains how RLHF (Reinforced Learning from Human Feedback) works.[59:28] Does Scott feel that there's room for optimism that educators can have a decent tool to hunt down this kind of plagiarism?[1:02:08] Is there anything that Scott is excited about seeing implemented on 1000 gate-based qubits with a decent amount of error mitigation? [1:04:05] Scott shares his interest in designing better quantum supremacy experiments.[1:07:43] Could these quantum supremacy experiments (based on random circuit sampling) already deliver a scalable advantage? [1:10:58] Kevin and Sebastian share the highlights of a fun and enlightening conversation with Scott Aaronson.Mentioned in this episode:Visit The New Quantum Era PodcastCheck Shtetl-OptimizeQuantum Computing Since Democritus, Scott AaronsonLearn more about the Adiabatic Algorithm result by Hastings and the Quantum Walk Algorithm result by Childs et Al.Tweetables and Quotes:“The dividing line between serious and nonserious quantum computing research is, are you asking the question of, ‘Can you actually be the best that a classical computer could do at the same desk? “ — Scott Aaronson“My first big result in quantum computing that got me into the field was to prove that Prasad Hoyer tap algorithm for the collision problem was optimal.”  — Scott Aaronson“ Quantum Walks are  a way of achieving Grover type speed ups at a wider range of problems than you would have expected.” — Scott Aaronson“AI safety is now a subject where you can get feedback.”  — Scott Aaronson“We don't have any theorems that would explain the recent successes of deep learning, the best way we can explain why is that none of the theorems rule it out.” — Scott Aaronson

Welcome to another episode of The New Quantum Era Podcast hosted by Kevin Rowney and Sebastian Hassinger.In this episode, we are joined by Dorit Aharonov, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one of the pioneers of quantum computing. She's also the Chief Science Officer at QEDMA, a quantum startup based in Israel. Dorit is one of the major movers and shakers of quantum error correction and co-author of the important Threshold Theorem for quantum error correction. Kevin, Sebastian, and Dorit talk about her recent work on the theoretical foundations of random circuit sampling.Key Takeaways:[4:22] Dorit shares her path into quantum information and computing.[8:27]  Dorit explains the threshold theorem in an easy-to-understand manner.[16:35] The velocity of error correction versus the generation of errors in the computation could depend on physical implementation, or the algorithm. Maybe even both.[18:53] A more powerful assertion Dorit makes is that there's a deeper connection between the phases of matter and the transition between solid and liquid and these quantum error correction thresholds.[19:51] A lot of the foundations of classical error correction were laid down in the mid-40s in Von Neumann's work when the IAS system was being built. Dorit still sees the echoes of that.[22:35] We might be witnessing a growing momentum around the powerful expression of new quantum error correction technologies.[25:28] Dorit talks about the difference between error mitigation and error correction.[26:55] Dorit explains the idea of the reset gate.[30:22] It might be safe to say that challenges are primarily engineering in nature and that we have enough science to enable that engineering to get to fault tolerance.[31:50] Dorit discusses a possible timeline for this engineering to get to fault tolerance.[34:07] Is Dorit an NISQ optimist or a pessimist when it comes to real-world applications?[39:21] Dorit addresses the difference between practical and asymptotic quantum advantage.[41:30] Dorit shares what the paper on random circuit sampling shows.[45:25] Dorit explains why the machine learning algorithms that were dequantized are  treacherous.[49:56] Dorit shows optimism regarding the possibility of seeing evidence of a quantum event.[52:25] Dorit admits to finding constructive interference between working in the industry and working on theoretical questions.[53:50] Is there something Dorit is excited about in the next year or two that will be another step forward?[56:50] Dorit talks about concrete examples of experiments and sensors that might be arriving thanks to quantum computing advancements.[1:00:35] Sebastian and Kevin share the highlights of a fantastic conversation with Dorit.Mentioned in this episode:Visit The New Quantum EraThe New Quantum Era PodcastLimitations of Noisy Reversible Computation Dorit Aharonov, Michael Ben-Or, Russell Impagliazzo, Norm NisanThe Complexity of NISQ, Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan, and  Jerry LiA polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling Dorit Aharonov, Xun Gao, Zueph Landau, Yunchao Liu, Umesh Vazirani QEDMATweetables and Quotes:“Nobody actually believed that it was possible to correct errors that occur on quantum states because of the lack of reversibility. ” —  Dorit Aharonov“it's a physics phenomenon… below a certain threshold, we can think of this as if the system is capable of some completely different behavior, like ice and water. It's just like a phase transition -- below that, there would be macroscopic entanglement and … ability to control large scale quantum correlations. And above it, this would not be possible.”  — Dorit Aharonov

Welcome to another episode of The New Quantum Era Podcast hosted by Kevin Rowney and Sebastian Hassinger. Today, they are joined by James Whitfield, who's a professor at Dartmouth College and is a colleague of Sebastian’s at Amazon Web Services’ quantum team. James has a quantum chemistry background, and, as a result, he brings that sensibility to his work in quantum information science.In today’s episode, they cover three main topics:They talk about the specific areas of quantum chemistry where progress in quantum computation can be seen towards cracking key problems.They address the intuitive nature of perceiving entanglement within quantum states and how those manifest in quantum algorithms (excellent material for people trying to get on top of that challenging concept).James shares his perspectives on enhancing pedagogy in Quantum Information Science, both in the K -12 range and at the graduate level. Key Takeaways:[4:06] James talks about his background.[6:37] What's the simplest way to explain what quantum chemistry is?[8:18] James shares framing remarks on the merit of quantum computing in these early phases regarding its applicability to physical chemistry. [10:30] James talks about the concept of time evolution.[11:13] James explains the differences between the dynamical nature and the optimization nature of a problem.[13:06] James speaks of what happens inside of quantum time evolution.[14:54] Geometry optimization is only one problem that people discuss.[16:47] James talks about the ‘clamped nuclei’ approximation.[17:33] James describes the two ways of thinking about the Schrodinger equation.[19:59] What types of things would we be able to do if we could model time intervals? [24:09] Does James think that, in terms of time evolutions,  fairly large numbers of fault-tolerant qubits are needed to do useful calculations? Or is there a class of problems that NISQ or even Analog Devices like QuEra could be helpful with?[27:13] What is entanglement entropy? And what does that mean for computation?[30:48] Why do people believe in the extra power of quantum computing?[32:37] James defines coherence and decoherence.[34:25] James explains why measuring the growth rate of entanglement entropy over time is one way to capture the richness of the other quantum state.[36:42] James talks about the application of quantum chemistry.[42:55] James believes that, eventually, these will all converge.[43:54] James shares one of his projects about how we use quantum computers to benchmark what people do today.[45:37] The hard part is not the implementation; James explains why.[47:53] James uses the analogy of the robotics challenge.[48:41] James talks about the event called: Quantum Computing Quantum Chemistry Benchmark. 2023.[49:25] Is there an optimum starting point for quantum education? [52:45] James works with no negative probabilities.[55:05] James talks about quantum mechanics and atomic physics.[56:25] Quantum and AI often get grouped into the same category in terms of technology.[57:46] James shares what he enjoys the most about his work.[59:30] Does James think that eventually, software will eat all of these disciplines of science related to quantum information, and we will end up with scientists writing code, and that code will solve problems in chemistry, physics, or other scientific areas through writing software?[1:02:40] Kevin and Sebastian share the highlights of a fantastic conversation with James Whitfield.Mentioned in this episode:Visit The New Quantum Era PodcastComputational Complexity in Electronic Structure James Whitfield, Peter J. Love, Alan Aspuru-GuzikLimitations of Linear Cross-Entropy as a Measure for Quantum Advantage Xun Gao, Marcin Kalinowski, Chi-Ning Chou, Mikhail D. Lukin, Boaz Barak, Soonwon ChoiUnderstanding the Schrodinger equation as a kinematic statement: A probability-first approach to quantum James Daniel Whitfield2023 Quantum Chemistry on Quantum Computers Benchmarking ContestTweetables and Quotes:“To actually get what the strength of that spring should be, you need to know what the electrons are doing, and that's where electronic structure comes in, and this is where a lot of the effort inside of quantum computing has gone in.”.   —  James Whitfield“ In terms of their justification for believing in the extra power of quantum computing, the soul of the claim for many people is largely founded on the capacity of these systems to witness entanglement and have a richer notion of state, which is harder to express classically.” — Kevin Rowney“Quantum and AI often get grouped into the same category in terms of technology.”  — Sebastian Hassinger.“There are still fantastic scientists who take entire journeys inside their head, building mathematical structures, they don't bother to code it up, and then they give it to someone else who codes it up.”   —  James Whitfield.

We continue our stimulating conversation with Joe Fitzsimons, CEO and founder of Horizon Quantum Computing. After last episode's exploration of Joe's reasoned case for an optimistic future for quantum computing, we dig into Horizon's development of compiling tools that Joe hopes will unlock broad performance advantages from future quantum devices. Computer History MuseumMcCullough-Pitts paper on artificial neuronsA guide to the HHL algorithm from the excellent qiskit open source textbook

Kevin and Sebastian are joined by Joe Fitzsimons, founder and CEO of Horizon Quantum Computing, a startup based in Singapore. Joe recently posted a thread on Twitter responding to some of the reactions to a recent Time cover story about quantum computing. We were really struck by his level-headed optimism and so we wanted to dig in deeper. This is part one of our conversation with Joe, where he explains the reasoning behind his optimism for the future of the technology. Mentioned in the episodeGlobal Risk Institute 2022 Quantum Threat Timeline Report  The Center for Quantum Technologies in SingaporeWikipedia page on 2 nanometer process for microprocessor fabrication

Kevin and Sebastian are joined by Grant Salton, a quantum researcher at AWS, who helps us understand a recent paper from Google and Caltech whose authors describe a simulation of a wormhole on Google's Sycamore quantum computer. The paper stirred some controversy and push back on the misunderstanding of the claims being made, and Grant walks us through a sub-domain of quantum information science called "it from qubit," which seeks to bridge elements of astrophysics with concepts from quantum information. Mentioned in the episode:The Nature paper from Google and Caltech describing the wormhole experiment and findings. Some context from Caltech blog.John Wheeler's paper: "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links" which coined "it from bit."A BBC article describing the "quantum hair" solution to Hawking's black hole information paradox.The Edge of All We Know, a terrific documentary that traces the efforts to solve the information paradox in parallel with the effort to capture an image of a black hole. 

Key Takeaways:[3:38] Nathalie shares how she found her way into the field of quantum technology.[6:25] Nathalie talks about the key moment in the landscape towards being a believer in Quantum Technology.[8:29] Nathalie talks about certain things that made her change her mind.[12:20] Nathalie speaks about her particular entry into the science field.[18:09] How far up the stack does Nathalie’s interest lie, and how does that inform what she has been doing down at the materials?[22:54] Nathalie shares the story about NSF.[25:48] What is wrong with Niobium?[27:12]  Nathalie explains the difficulty of surface physics and surface chemistry in this domain.[32:30] Is there a way to describe conceptually how a vacancy in a diamond can be used as a two-level system or for a cubit, or as a sensing device?[37:03] Why is it called a color center? [37:59] Nathalie talks about the genesis of her paper which includes material science foundations for the quantum information process.[42:35] Can Nathalie make any speculations based on what she learned from the review paper?[46:54] Is it true that manipulating diamonds is really slow?[48:28] Sebastian talks about the way they met Nathalie.[49:29] Are there things that either educators or industry participants in this stage of quantum computing and quantum information technologies can do to help make this area work better than the other fields have in the past? [55:58] Sebastian and Kevin share the highlights of an amazing conversation with Nathalie DeLeon.Mentioned in this episode:Visit The New Quantum Era PodcastCo-Design Center for Quantum Advantage Tweetables and Quotes:“If you could do a quantum version of erasure conversion, you can actually get extremely high thresholds.“ — Nathalie DeLeon“The fact that,  in some sense, fault tolerance is a phase, a transition is a quantum phase transition, right? You have a fundamentally different system before and after you turn on your error correction. .“ — Nathalie DeLeon

Welcome to another episode of The New Quantum Era Podcast hosted by Kevin Rowney and Sebastian Hassinger. Today, they are joined by Steve Girvin, professor of Physics at Yale who has a central role in the Yale Quantum Institute, which has been ground zero for the recent development in superconducting qubits. The topics we had initially planned needed some adjustment, because on the day of the interview, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their work experimentally verifying the theory behind entanglement, the source of much of quantum computing's power. Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger were recognized for their experiments in an area that has broad implications for secure information transfer and quantum computing. Sebastian, Kevin, and Steve have an interesting talk about some of the history of the superconducting qubits and the transmon in particular, which is a basis for most of the modern superconducting qubits on the market. They also cover the topic of diversity, quality, and inclusion. Key Takeaways:[3:43] Steve introduces himself.[5:23] Steve shares his primary domains of research.[9:50]  Was there a sort of self-awareness in the Yale group that Steve and his team were taking radically? Were they considering a different approach that could solve some of the challenges of the other models that existed at the time?[14:38] Steve talks about how relatively quickly the hardware can be fabricated to be able to crank out, iterations, variations, and experiments. [17:27] Is there room for optimism about the new dimensions of research related to MER material science?  [19:25] Steve shares his thoughts on the news about the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.[22:18] Steve talks about how some of the epistemological questions that these paradoxes present, feel really mind-bending to many people on the outside of physics.[25:38] Steve addresses how hard it is to predict the future.[27:21] Does Steve consider himself an optimist about the progress of quantum computing?[30:10] How can we get reliable performance out of an inherently, very unreliable system?[33:22] Steve helps us fill in the narrative, in the history of where GKP codes are situated and their significance to contemporary developments.[41:14] Steve talks about the basic steps of the algorithm to do the error correction.[44:01] The history of computer science is very, uh, white, male, and, uh, dominated in nature, Steve shares his thoughts about diversity, equity, and inclusion.[48:34] What we can do to change the composition of the field when the underlying foundations of the way science is done in the lab have a such rigid history of hierarchy, power structures, and power dynamics that are so easily abused?[55:02] Sebastian and Kevin share their thoughts on an amazing conversation with Steve Girvin,  Mentioned in this episode:Visit The New Quantum Era PodcastTuring's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe, George DysonDocumentary: Picture a ScientistTweetables and Quotes:“A very productive part of my childhood was having nothing to do, but to dream.“ — Steve Girvin “The simpler you keep things, the easier it's to do things “ — Steve Girvin “Einstein really made massive contributions to the development of the quantum theory. “ — Steve Girvin “The way we test whether our quantum computer is a quantum computer is checking first thing in the morning to calibrate it, if it's doing the thing that Einstein said was impossible then, it's working.“ — Steve Girvin “Looking ahead, it's very, very hard to predict where this is going, but along the way, there's such fantastic. basic science and quantum.” — Steve Girvin“When you're doing a hiring search, it's not about adding constraints, like interviewing more women…It's about removing constraints. You should look wider. There's a theorem that if you release constraints, the optimum cannot get worse, it can only get better. ” — Steve Girvin

Key Takeaways:[3:23] James introduces himself.[4:20] James talks about his engagement in game development using the public IBM Cloud quantum systems.[5:40] James explains why he said he expected the field of quantum computing to be more accessible by starting with hobbyists.[7:02] James talks about the theory behind quantum computing.[8:23] James speaks of how to engage people in quantum computing by proving Einstein was wrong in how he saw quantum mechanics.[12:39] What are some of the things that James has seen that were sort of super inventive ways to use quantum computing in a game context?[14:20] James talks about the quantum emoji generator.[15:26] James shares his opinion in regard to Quantum Chess.[16:48] James talks about a new game called Quantum Odyssey[18:08] James shares an experience working with kids when he was at the University of Basel.[19:55] James talks about his passion for quantum error correction.[20:41] James tells the difference between quantum error correction and quantum error mitigation.[24:18] Sebastian talks about mitigation strategies.[27:00] Could it be that lots of the statistical tradecraft with respect to analyzing data and attempting to interpret its meaning in the presence of acknowledged errors and the signal is perhaps a foundational part of QAM? [28:01] What are the major and most interesting themes to James these days? [29:36] James explains the threshold theorem.[34:33] What is the current math result in terms of the threshold of error occurrence that you need to get to get over the hump?[35:16] James talks about the experimental results where people have built minimal examples of quantum error-correcting codes[36:01] James talks about a recent experiment made at IBM quantum.[36:40] What does surface code mean?[39:20] Are there any other types of errors that quantum error correction has to struggle with? Or are the bit flip and phase error the two main aspects?[41:55] James talks about the recent research on silicon spin qubits.[45:39] Sebastian and Kevin share the highlights of an amazing conversation with James.Mentioned in this episode:Visit The New Quantum Era PodcastStephen Hawking faces Paul Rudd in epic chess match (feat. Keanu Reeves)Tweetables and Quotes:“It's better if we start off by building a little bit of intuition, and then bringing in the maths, it's important to bring in the maths but I think it's better when the maths is describing an intuition that people already have and that's the starting point.” — James Wootton“There have been experimental results already where people have built minimal examples of quantum error correcting codes and showing that they have a beneficial effect. So that's what happens when the noise is low enough. “ — James Wootton