Home page
Quantum computer is useless forever
(Fig.1) IBM-Cleveland clinic's just 4 ~ 10 qubits is useless, still Not a quantum computer (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value ).
The 3rd paragraph of this overhyped news (4/2/2025) says
"the team was able to demonstrate the capabilities of quantum machine learning (= which does Not mean a quantum computer ) by creating a model that was able to predict proton affinity more accurately than classical computing." ← wrong.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-abstract-last says "As a result, the hybrid model (= "hybrid" means "classical computer") outperformed its classical counterpart and achieved consistent performance comparable to (= did Not outperform ) traditional ML models.. set on both a noiseless simulator (= classical computer ) and real ( error-prone = noisy ) quantum hardware"
p.4-Figure 1 and p.5-Table 3 show their IBM-Cleveland quantum hardware consists of only 4 ~ 10 qubits (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value ), which is useless, still Not a quantum computer.
p.5-Table 3-last says "All models were run on a noiseless simulator (= noiseless or errorless simulator is just a classical computer disguised as a quantum computer )"
↑ This-p.5-Table 4 shows IBM-Cleveland quantum computer hardware (= just 4 ~ 10 qubits, still Not a computer ) gave worse results with more errors (= MAE or mean absolute error = 3.63 in parenthesis in Hybrid QNN, MAE = 0 means best, errorless ) than the noiseless classical simulator (= MAE = 3.29 = less error than a quantum computer ).
↑ p.4-left, p.5-Table 4-Hybrid QNN Also in the coefficients of determination (= R2 = 1 is best, 0 is worst ), the quantum computer gave results worse (= R2 = 0.89 ) than a noiseless classical computer's simlator (= R2 = 0.94 ).
This-p.6-right-2nd-paragraph says "Current quantum computers are susceptible to noise from various sources, leading to unavoidable errors in quantum computations (= quantum computers alone are completely useless )... The hybrid model (= classical computer ) implemented on hardware yields a MAE of 3.63 kcal/mol, matching (= Not outperforming ) the performance of its classical NN counterpart (= quantum computer worse than the classical computer's noiseles simulator )"
As a result, the overhyped media's quantum computing outperforming classical computers is fake, which just means a noiseless classical computer simulator outperforming today's error-prone quantum computers and some slow classical method (= Not outperforming classical computers ).
(Fig.2) Hype ! Today's quantum computers are useless, cannot predict proteins.
The 1st, 7th paragraphs of this hyped news (5/29/2024) say
"Researchers from Cleveland Clinic and IBM... that could (= just speculation ) lay the groundwork for applying quantum computing methods to protein structure prediction."
"The research team applied a mix of quantum and classical computing methods." ← This (deceptive) hybrid computer is just a classical computer.
↑ This research paper ↓
This p.14-left-3rd-paragraph says
"We tested steps 1−3 of this workflow on a small, but highly
relevant seven amino acid fragment" ← Just 7 amino acids, Not a protein
"the quantum algorithm executed on IBM_Cleveland and solved by VQE (= hybrid method, which is just a classical computer )"
p.15-Figure 11(a) shows this IBM quantum computer used only 10 qubits for dealing with 7 amino acids.
↑ These 10 qubits (= one qubit can express only 0 or 1 bit state ) can express only 210 = 1024 different numbers, which can be easily expressed by the ordinary classical computer with billions of bits.
So we do Not need the present error-prone quantum computers with only tiny numbers of impractical qubits, and No quantum computer's advantage.
A practical quantum compute is said to need more than millions of qubits, which is impossible to realize forever.
As a result. contrary to the media-hype, today's impractical quantum computers with tiny numbers of error-prone qubits are completely useless for any purposes including protein structure prediction or drug discovery.
Feel free to link to this site.
