jump to navigation

D-Wave at CSC Digital Disruptions conference November 4, 2008

Posted by Geordie in D-Wave Science & Technology, Presentations, World Domination.
trackback

I had an opportunity to present at Computer Sciences Corporation’s Digital Disruptions conference in Falls Church, Virginia last week. The audience was primarily CTOs/CIOs from CSC clients.  I went for a run around the hotel and had a pretty big sense of deja vu, with a weird feeling that I’d been there before. It took awhile but eventually made the connection; DARPA has an office right across the street, which I’d visited when the FOQUS program was being suggested.

A podcast of the talk is available on itunes (I don’t know how to link to it directly, but in itunes search on CSC Leading Edge Forum you will find it), as are the other talks from the conference. You can find the slides there, also I’ve linked to them here 20081029_csc_final.

One of the memes I tried to focus on in this talk was the critical importance of best practices fab in any quantum computer development effort. This is a point that I don’t think is widely appreciated. It simply is not possible to build processors in any way but the one used now in the semiconductor industry. This is unfortunate (because it means that if you’re really serious about trying to build a quantum computer you need to build your own foundry at extreme technical risk, time and expense) but it’s also reality.

Here is a link to a video of the talk.

Comments»

1. JP - November 5, 2008

after watching ur clip i get the feeling that these CTOs/CIOs are like , well talk to us when your faster then a supercomputer.

so will a working Rainier start to make that apparent to CTOs/CIOs .

were showing entanglement with 28 qubit would impress the science crowd more

2. Neil Dickson - November 6, 2008

Best question ever: “How many qubits does it take to get a date?”

3. JP - November 7, 2008

it doesn’t matter, cause has soon has you try to touch her everything changes

4. nanoREV. » Blog Archive » D-Wave 128 qubit quantum computers - November 7, 2008

[...] In the article “Alternative Nanoelectronics: A Comparative Analysis,” published in the December 2006 article of Nanotechnology Law and Business, D-Wave was noted as one of the top four companies producing new paradigms of electronics in the 21st century with their focus being on quantum computing. In the last several months D-Wave has taken some steps forward in the production of multiple quantum bit computing which may eventually provide competition with conventional supercomputers. D-Wave’s blog gives some information and video from a recent talk discussing their research and hurdles in development available at this link. [...]

5. JP - November 16, 2008

http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800552596_480200_NT_14c8f80b.HTM

well if this article is right there might be some low cost fab available out there some where, dont know if you could use it.

6. Charles Pergiel - May 28, 2009

“It simply is not possible to build processors in any way but the one used now in the semiconductor industry. This is unfortunate (because it means that if you’re really serious about trying to build a quantum computer you need to build your own foundry at extreme technical risk, time and expense) but it’s also reality.”

Whaaaat? Did you build your own foundry? Or are you building processors the way the semiconductor industry does? Or you are not building quantum computers. Clarify, please.

7. Geordie - May 28, 2009

Hi Charles

Yes we developed our own foundry, and yes it was developed within and uses semiconductor best practices. It is the first production superconducting fab. Currently the process is a planarized 4 niobium layer, 0.25 micron, with TiPt resistor module, 0.6 micron Nb/AlOx/Nb via junctions.

Charles Pergiel - June 1, 2009

Thank you for the prompt reply.

So the layers of niobium are 250 nm thick, and the feature size on surface of a layer is 60 nm. Is that what you are telling me?

I am only interested in these dimensions for the sake of comparison with commercial silicon, and then only so I have some vague idea of what’s going on.