The quantum computer is supposed to process information by applying unitary transformations to 2 N complex amplitudes defining the state of N qubits. A useful machine needing N~10 3 or more, the number of continuous parameters describing the state of a quantum computer at any given moment is at least 2 1000 ~10 300 which is much greater than the number of protons in the Universe. However, the theorists believe that the feasibility of large-scale quantum computing has been proved via the “threshold theorem”. Like for any theorem, the proof is based on a number of assumptions considered as axioms. However, in the physical world none of these assumptions can be fulfilled exactly. Any assumption can be only approached with some limited precision. So, the rather meaningless “error per qubit per gate” threshold must be supplemented by a list of the precisions with which all assumptions behind the threshold theorem should hold. Such a list still does not exist. The theory also seems to ignore the undesired free evolution of the quantum computer caused by the energy differences of quantum states entering any given superposition. Another important point is that the hypothetical quantum computer will be a system of 10 3 –10 6 qubits PLUS an extremely complex and monstrously sophisticated classical apparatus. This huge and strongly nonlinear system will generally exhibit instabilities and chaotic behavior.
The quantum computer is supposed to process information by applying unitary transformations to 2 N complex amplitudes defining the state of N qubits. A useful machine needing N~10 3 or more, the number of continuous parameters describing the state of a quantum computer at any given moment is at least 2 1000 ~10 300 which is much greater than the number of protons in the Universe. However, the theorists believe that the feasibility of large-scale quantum computing has been proved via the “threshold theorem”. Like for any theorem, the proof is based on a number of assumptions considered as axioms. However, in the physical world none of these assumptions can be fulfilled exactly. Any assumption can be only approached with some limited precision. So, the rather meaningless “error per qubit per gate” threshold must be supplemented by a list of the precisions with which all assumptions behind the threshold theorem should hold. Such a list still does not exist. The theory also seems to ignore the undesired free evolution of the quantum computer caused by the energy differences of quantum states entering any given superposition. Another important point is that the hypothetical quantum computer will be a system of 10 3 –10 6 qubits PLUS an extremely complex and monstrously sophisticated classical apparatus. This huge and strongly nonlinear system will generally exhibit instabilities and chaotic behavior.
This is a brief review of the experimental and theoretical quantum computing. The hopes for eventually building a useful quantum computer rely entirely on the so-called "threshold theorem". In turn, this theorem is based on a number of assumptions, treated as axioms, i.e. as being satisfied exactly. Since in reality this is not possible, the prospects of scalable quantum computing will remain uncertain until the required precision, with which these assumptions should be approached, is established. Some related sociological aspects are also discussed. .
The hopes for scalable quantum computing rely on the “threshold theorem”: once the error per qubit per gate is below a certain value, the methods of quantum error correction allow indefinitely long quantum computations. The proof is based on a number of assumptions, which are supposed to be satisfied exactly , like axioms, e.g., zero undesired interactions between qubits, etc. However, in the physical world no continuous quantity can be exactly zero, it can only be more or less small. Thus the “error per qubit per gate” threshold must be complemented by the required precision with which each assumption should be fulfilled. In the absence of this crucial information, the prospects of scalable quantum computing remain uncertain.
We are still at the very beginnings of physical implementations of quantum computers. The devices listed below have been used successfully to entangle two qubits (at most!), except for NMR which has gone up to 7 qubits. It is still premature to try to predict which device will prove most effective for building a quantum computer capable of dealing with several hundred qubits (if such a computer someday exists); perhaps it will be something new, not on this list at all. In any case, it would be as foolish to predict that such a computer will not be available by 2050 as to predict the contrary. The storage and processing of quantum information requires physical systems possessing the following properties (di Vincenzo criteria): (i) they must be scalable, that is, capable of being extended to a sufficient number of qubits, with well defined qubits; (ii) they must have qubits which can be initialized in the state |0〉; (iii) they must have qubits which are carried by physical states of sufficiently long lifetime, so as to ensure that the quantum states remain coherent throughout the calculation; (iv) they must possess a set of universal quantum gates: unitary transformations on individual qubits and a cNOT gate, which are obtained by controlled manipulations; (v) there must be an efficient procedure for measuring the state of the qubits at the end of the calculation ( readout of the results).
In the hypothetical quantum computing one replaces the classical twostate bit by a quantum element (qubit) with two basic states, ↑ and ↓.Its arbitrary state is described by the wave function ψ = a↑+ b↓, where a and b are complex amplitudes, satisfying the normalization condition.Unlike the classical bit, that can be only in one of the two states, ↑ or ↓, the qubit can be in a continuum of states defined by the quantum amplitudes a and b.The qubit is a continuous object.At a given moment, the state of a quantum computer with N qubits is characterized by 2 N quantum amplitudes, which are continuous variables restricted by the normalization condition only.Thus, the hypothetical quantum computer is an analog machine characterized by a super-astronomical number of continuous variables (even for N~100÷1000).Their values cannot be arbitrary, they must be under our control.Thus the answer to the question in title is: When physicists and engineers will learn to keep under control this number of continuous parameters, which means -never.
A quantum computer is an information processing systems that utilizes invertible logic elements to perform reversible logic operations. It can also perform irreversible logic operations. Thus, in principle, it can compute the information transformation rule of any physical system for which the rules are known. A quantum computer can be designed to perform parallel computation on a massive scale, and therefore can have fast execution time. The basic structure of a quantum computer includes 1) a quantum register, or a configuration of quantum-mechanical energy states to store quantum bits (qubits) of information, 2) a quantum processor designed to induce quantum mechanical interactions between any arbitrary pair of qubits to perform a specified logic operations. 3) a quantum bus or network for transferring qubits from the registers to the processor and vice versa, and 4) a physical mechanisms for non-destructive measurements on the qubits. Quantum mechanical systems with the potential for realizing quantum computers include ion-trap quantum computers, cavity quantum electrodynamics quantum computers, photon-trap quantum computers, nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computers, and superconducting quantum computers. Decoherence [1 ,2] possesses the greatest challenge to the practical realization of quantum computers, because it causes the collapse of the quantum superposition states that contain the vital results of qubit manipulations. Decoherence processes are measurement-induced, noise-induced, and environment-induced [3] . Schemes to correct or circumvent the detrimental effects of decoherence in quantum processors fall into active error-correction schemes, and passive error-correction schemes [4]. Active error-correction schemes are designed to detect and correct for errors during computation. Algorithmic fault-tolerant computing [5, 6] is the most promising active-error correction scheme. In fault-tolerant computing, ancillary qubits are encoded into data blocks of the quantum registers. They are then used to detect errors. Once detected appropriate error-correction algorithms are then employed to rectify the errors. The implementation of fault-tolerant quantum computing has been hampered by the lack of practical universal set of quantum gates that can process an encoded data without propagating or introducing additional errors. Passive-error correction schemes [7] attempt to finding Hilbert subspaces that are intrinsically free of decoherence effects [8]. The key to quantum computing in such a decoherence-free subspace is the identification of mechanisms that can effect quantum mechanical interactions between the decoherence-free states without taking the system out of the decoherence-free environment. The challenge is to identify and employ physical processes that can achieve these goals.
The so-called "threshold" theorem says that, once the error rate per qubit per gate is below a certain value, indefinitely long quantum computation becomes feasible, even if all of the qubits involved are subject to relaxation processes, and all the manipulations with qubits are not exact. The purpose of this article, intended for physicists, is to outline the ideas of quantum error correction and to take a look at the proposed technical instruction for fault-tolerant quantum computation. It seems that the mathematics behind the threshold theorem is somewhat detached from the physical reality, and that some ideal elements are always present in the construction. This raises serious doubts about the possibility of large scale quantum computations, even as a matter of principle.