So does slide 10 basically show your system was in a superposition right until measurement or could naysayers also say it could be explained by your system evolving along to separate paths up until measurement?

Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn’t you then test whether your system was superposed or not by measuring your system in an orthogonal basis ? Which by the way bring up a another question. Does your system have a good measureable orthogonal basis?

If none of my comments make sense i’ll try to post again when im more coherent during regular waking hours.

“So does slide 10 basically show your system was in a superposition right until measurement or could naysayers also say it could be explained by your system evolving along to separate paths up until measurement?”

It’s the latter. The algorithm we use always has the system in a classical bit state by the time readout is performed. When the readouts are thrown the system is in one or the other classical states by construction. The fact that the two theoretically degenerate solutions are each obtained roughly 50% of the time is evidence that the control we have over the machine language parameters is pretty good.

“Does your system have a good measureable orthogonal basis?”

Our system’s measurement basis is fixed. We measure the direction of magnetic flux threading the qubits.

Re acronym heaviness: Yeah that’s one of the unfortunate side-effects of only having 10 minutes to do the presentation!

There were some good questions after the talk, generally related to AQC and how we were characterizing the performance of the processor in regards to its QM behaviour.

Geordie

So does slide 10 basically show your system was in a superposition right until measurement or could naysayers also say it could be explained by your system evolving along to separate paths up until measurement?

Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn’t you then test whether your system was superposed or not by measuring your system in an orthogonal basis ? Which by the way bring up a another question. Does your system have a good measureable orthogonal basis?

If none of my comments make sense i’ll try to post again when im more coherent during regular waking hours.

Chris

Hi Chris,

“So does slide 10 basically show your system was in a superposition right until measurement or could naysayers also say it could be explained by your system evolving along to separate paths up until measurement?”

It’s the latter. The algorithm we use always has the system in a classical bit state by the time readout is performed. When the readouts are thrown the system is in one or the other classical states by construction. The fact that the two theoretically degenerate solutions are each obtained roughly 50% of the time is evidence that the control we have over the machine language parameters is pretty good.

“Does your system have a good measureable orthogonal basis?”

Our system’s measurement basis is fixed. We measure the direction of magnetic flux threading the qubits.

Geordie,

Great slides. What questions were asked at the presentation? Any interesting comments?

BTW the slides are acronym heavy which decreases readability. I have attempted to define all of them but please double check.

AFM – anti-ferromagnetic

CJJ – complementary Josephson junction

JPL – Jet Propulsion Laboratory

MRT – macroscopic resonant tunneling

NN – nearest neighbor

NNN – next nearest neighbor

Re acronym heaviness: Yeah that’s one of the unfortunate side-effects of only having 10 minutes to do the presentation!

There were some good questions after the talk, generally related to AQC and how we were characterizing the performance of the processor in regards to its QM behaviour.