Home page
Quantum computer is useless
(Fig.1) Quantum computers can never outperform classical computers
All the media such as Bloomberg, New York times, Financial times falsely claim "Google quantum computer Willow showed verifiable quantum advantage, which was 13000 times faster than a classical supercomputer !", which is completely fake news.
Wall Street journal also spread blatant fake news that Trump administration may take equity stakes in fraudulent IonQ and D-Wave.
Contrary to fake news such as useful quantum computers for drug discovery, the quantum computers including Google have No practical application, because today's quantum computers give only wrong erroneous answers.
This-5th, 8th-paragraphs say
"The company stopped short of calling the work practical." ← still useless fake quantum advantage
"still falls short of outperforming classical computers in real-world tasks ( this or this-5th-paragraph )."
This latest Google quantum computer with only 65 qubits (= far from practical million qubits ) did only useless algorithm called "quantum echos", which just output random chaotic meaningless numbers ( this-2nd-paragraph, this-2nd-paragraph ).
The 5th, 4th-last paragraphs of this site say
"But for quantum echoes, Google inserts single-qubit gates performed with a randomized parameter." ← Quantum computer could just output random useless numbers
"The other issue is verifiability." ← No verifiable quantum advantage after all.
The 4th-last, 3rd-last, 2nd-last paragraphs of this or this site say
"Calculating quantum echoes involves performing a variety of random (= useless ) operations on the computer’s quantum bits, or qubits."
"The researchers used 65 of Willow's qubits (= far from useful million qubits, this-8th-last-paragraph ) for the quantum echo calculation,... produces a complex quantum interference effect that is difficult to compute classically (= wrong )."
"However, they don't yet outpace classical calculations." ← No quantum computer advantage after all.
↑ This Google quantum computer's error rate after 40 random qubit operators was too bad = more than 99.9% error rate (= fidelity was just 0.001, this-p.7-left-1st-paragraph ).
This-middle-Limitations and cautions say
"The team is careful Not to claim a fully general quantum advantage."
"overall system fidelity (= 1 - error rate ) was 0.001 (= meaning error rate was 99.9%, too bad, this-p.3(or p.2)-1st-paragraph ) at 40 circuit cycles... still outside of the thresholds required for fault-tolerant computation.... not immune to noise or drift."
This-2nd-last-paragraph says
"the overall system fidelity (0.001 at 40 circuit cycles = 99.9% error rate, this-p.59 ) is still below the criteria needed for computing that can withstand faults."
↑ Quantum computers are still too error-prone to give right answers ( this-2~4th-paragraphs, this-3rd-last-paragraph, ).
This-middle-current limitations and future prospects say
"Google maintains that the advent of universally applicable, fault-tolerant quantum computing systems is still a distant goal (= still error-prone )."
"do Not yet extend to commercial or widespread use (= still useless quantum computers )."
They baselessly claim that this Google erroneous quantum computer with just 65 qubits (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value ) could manipulate 265 (fantasy) parallel universes ( this-9th-paragraph, this-middle~ ), which may take a classical supercomputer using only one real world much more time to emulate. ← fake quantum advantage.
This-middle challenges and future steps ~ benefits say
"Despite progress, issues like qubit instability and error correction remain" ← still Google cannot correct errors
"Quantum processes up to 2^N (= N is number of qubits ) calculations versus N for classical (= fictional quantum speed-up based on unreal parallel universes, this-8th-paragraph-superposition )"
↑ The point is this Google quantum computer with No ability to correct errors could output only wrong answers, while a classical computer (= forced to simulate parallel-universe qubit operations by classical tensor network methods ) output only exact answers.
So there is No supremacy, advantage nor speed-up in quantum computers giving only erroneous wrong answers, contrary to overhyped fake news.
See this-middle-why did Google focus on a small problem rather than unlocking a really useful problem ?
(Fig.2) Quantum computers gave only wrong answers (= SNR far less than ∞ )
↑ This Nature research paper ( this-1st-paragraph-link ) ↓
p.2-left-last-paragraph (and p.3-Fig.2a ) says -- just output random useless numbers
"our quantum circuits, which are composed of random single-qubit and fixed
two-qubit gates." ← This Google quantum computer (= still Not a computer ) could output only random useless numbers.
p.4-right-last-paragraph says -- exact classical computer's simulation
"Figure 3d shows experimental C(2)
values
from a set of circuits comprising 40 qubits,... To quantify the accuracy of each dataset, we
define a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; Methods) against exactly simulated (= classical computer )
C(2)
values"
p.7-left-Signal-to-noise ratio (= SNR = wrong quantum computer against exact classical computer ) is defined as 1/( Cexp - Csim ) = This SNR becomes infinite when Google quantum computer (= Cexp ) gives the exact same values (= never happen ) as the classical computer's exact simulated values (= Csim ).
p.7-left-last-classical simulation costs of 40-qubit circuits says -- exact classical
"Each 40-qubit circuit instance in Fig.3d,e required 3h to simulate
exactly on a Google Cloud virtual (= classical ) machine with.. CPUs (= classical computer gave exact simulated values, this-3~4th-paragraphs ).
↑ p.4-Fig.4b shows (= wrong quantum computer's results )
Google quantum computer (= Exp ) with less than 65 qubits gave only erroneous wrong answers with SNR less than 6 (= Not infinity nor exact value ) compared to classical computer's exact simulation (= Exact sim this-Fig.3d, this-p.4-p.7 ).
↑ This-p.4-Fig.5c says -- wrong quantum vs. exact classical
"c, Experimentally
measured Coff-diag(4) (quantum processor data).. Blue lines indicate the ideal (= exact ) values of Coff-diag(4) from a classical
simulation" ← The error-prone quantum computer's results disagreed with the ideal exact classical computer's simulation.
↑ This SNR (= signal-to-noise ratio ) becomes infinitely high when the quantum computer gives the exact numbers which are the same as the classical computers' exact simulated numbers ( this-p.7-left-signal-to-noise ratio, classical simulation costs of 40-qubit circuits ), which never happened in today's error-prone quantum computers.
↑ It is meaningless to compare only speeds when Google quantum computer (= still Not a computer ) gave only wrong answers while a classical computer (= superior ) gave exact answers.
This-paper's review-p.33-2nd-paragraph-last says
"The actual demonstration of
this advantage using realistic physical systems is left as future works.
" ← No quantum computer advantage.
This is a typical example of the prestigious top journals and Nobel prize used as the only holy grail to enable today's fake useless science such as (fantasy) parallel-universe quantum computers and climate change science to get taxpayers' money and make our life unhappy.
(Fig.3) Quantum computers useless for molecular calculations.
In the alleged proof-of-principle experiment (= in a still-unpublished arxiv ) of this (useless) quantum echoes algorithm to study some molecules, they used only 15 qubits (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value, so this Google with just 15-bitstring is still Not a computer, this-6-7th-paragraphs ).
↑ Just 15 (error-prone) qubits are useless, unable to calculate any molecular behavior without the help of a classical computer.
↑ Just 15 qubits (= one qubit can take 0 and 1 ) can express only 215 = 32768 numbers that can be easily simulated by an ordinary classical (= laptop ) computer more accurately than today's error-prone quantum computers.
This or this-2nd-last-paragraph says
"However, they don't yet outpace classical calculations." ← No quantum computer's advantage.
This-6th-last-paragraph says
"The fact that the demonstrations were done with small molecules, however, means that the modeling run on the quantum computer could also have been done on classical hardware (it only required 15 hardware qubits)..... The sorts of complex, long-distance interactions that would be out of range of classical simulation are still a bit beyond the reach of the current quantum hardware" ← No quantum advantage.
This-lower-OTOC NMR spectroscopy-4th-paragraph says
"Google carried out this test with 9 and 15 qubits respectively, so in a regime that can be emulated on a simple laptop.... Given the number of physical qubits used here, there is No quantum advantage at all. A laptop (= classical computer ) will always be cheaper and faster than any quantum computer for the execution of such circuit."
This-middle-Is this already solving an unsolvable problem today ? says
"Not yet. The experiment tackled a small and controlled problem that can still be simulated on a classical computer. "
↑ No quantum computer advantage nor utility
This-4th-patagraph-"NMR and why the distinction matters" say
"There is a second part of the story that uses the echo idea as a kind of molecular ruler. Here the goal is to infer inter-atomic distances and coupling information from NMR-like data. These NMR geometry demonstrations ran on 9 and 15 qubits, Not on 65... This is close to what today’s hardware can handle with error mitigation."
At that size, the problem can still be simulated on a capable (classical) desktop. It does Not show a computational advantage" ← No quantum computer's advantage in real-world experiments.
So Google quantum computer was too error-prone to mitigate (= Not correct ) errors even with the help of classical computers ( this-p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ).
This is why they reduced the numbers of qubits from the original 65-qubits in the dubious speed-up experiments to just 15 qubits in the NMR experiment ( this-p.11-left ).
This-7th-last-paragraph says
"While the Nature paper demonstrated some pending quantum advantage using Echoes OTOC interference circuits running on 65 qubits, it did Not perform any chemistry or NMR task (= useless )."
"Meanwhile, the arXiv paper, released the same day, did perform NMR spectroscopy on small molecules but did Not use any Echoes OTOC circuit. Instead, it used AlphaEvolve-generated circuits... Without any quantum advantage (= No quantum speed-up ), since being tested on (only) 9 and 15 qubits, and with relatively bad scaling prospects, at least in NISQ mode. It may generate some confusion"
↑ So Google (= colluding with academia ) and the media desperately try to make today's impractical quantum computers appear to have practical use to deceive ordinary people.
↑ This research paper ( this-lower-Toward real world application-link ) ↓
p.3-Fig.1-lower says -- classical computer needed
"Following
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data collection, the quantum computer provides an artificial system that is iteratively
tuned via classical feedback— until it matches experiment" ← Classical computer's correction was needed
p.5-right-2nd-paragraph says -- No prediction
"simulating
the OTOCs for these candidate PMFs (= potential of mean-force ) on a Willow quantum chip and selecting (= Not predict ) the candidate PMF that minimizes the difference between the simulated and experimentally measured OTOC curves" ← just select artificial potential models fitting experiments.
p.7-left-2nd-paragraph says -- No quantum advantage
"AlphaEvolve
optimization loop relies on evaluating candidate circuits
against a complete, classically pre-computed dataset of
OTOCs, which is not immediately scalable to beyond classical system sizes" ← No quantum computer advantage
p.11-left-1st-paragraph says "15 qubit"
↑ So this impractical experiment just used a classical computer to correct errors between NMR data and the just-15-qubit quantum computer's results (to create artificial model of some molecular structures fitting experiments ) instead of quantum computers predicting some molecular behavior.
So No quantum computer advantage nor utility after all.
Feel free to link to this site.
