arXiv:2008.05188

The Argument against Quantum Computers, the Quantum Laws of Nature, and Google's Supremacy Claims

Gil Kalai

Published Aug 12, 2020• 4 citations

Abstract

My 2018 lecture at the ICA workshop in Singapore dealt with quantum computation as a meeting point of the laws of computation and the laws of quantum mechanics. We described a computational complexity argument against the feasibility of quantum computers: we identified a very low-level complexity class of probability distributions described by noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers, and explained why it would allow neither good-quality quantum error-correction nor a demonstration of "quantum supremacy," namely, the ability of quantum computers to make computations that are impossible or extremely hard for classical computers. We went on to describe general predictions arising from the argument and proposed general laws that manifest the failure of quantum computers. In October 2019, "Nature" published a paper describing an experimental work that took place at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer, thus clearly challenging my theory. In this paper, I will explain and discuss my work in the perspective of Google's supremacy claims.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2008.05188

Related papers

Google's Quantum Supremacy Claim: Data, Documentation, and Discussion

Gil Kalai, Yosef Rinott, Tomer Shoham

In October 2019, Nature published a paper describing an experiment that took place at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer. Since September 2019 we have been involved in a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment. We have been trying to gather the relevant data and information in order to reconstruct and verify those parts of the Google experiment that are based on classical computations (except when the required computation is too heavy), and to perform a statistical analysis on the data. This document describes the available data and information for the Google experiment, some main questions in the evaluation of the experiment, and some of our results and plans.

arXiv:2210.12753Oct 23, 20223 citations

The Argument against Quantum Computers

Gil Kalai

We give a computational complexity argument against the feasibility of quantum computers. We identify a very low complexity class of probability distributions described by noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers, and explain why it will allow neither good-quality quantum error-correction nor a demonstration of "quantum supremacy." Some general principles governing the behavior of noisy quantum systems are derived. Our work supports the "physical Church thesis" studied by Pitowsky (1990) and follows his vision of using abstract ideas about computation to study the performance of actual physical computers.

arXiv:1908.02499Aug 7, 20192 citations

Statistical Aspects of the Quantum Supremacy Demonstration

Yosef Rinott, Tomer Shoham, Gil Kalai

In quantum computing, a demonstration of quantum supremacy (or quantum advantage) consists of presenting a task, possibly of no practical value, whose computation is feasible on a quantum device, but cannot be performed by classical computers in any feasible amount of time. The notable claim of quantum supremacy presented by Google’s team in 2019 consists of demonstrating the ability of a quantum circuit to generate, albeit with considerable noise, bitstrings from a distribution that is considered hard to simulate on classical computers. Very recently, in 2020, a quantum supremacy claim was presented by a group from the University of Science and Technology of China, using a different technology and generating a different distribution, but sharing some statistical principles with Google’s demonstration. Verifying that the generated data is indeed from the claimed distribution and assessing the circuit’s noise level and its fidelity is a statistical undertaking. The objective of this paper is to explain the relations between quantum computing and some of the statistical aspects involved in demonstrating quantum supremacy in terms that are accessible to statisticians, computer scientists, and mathematicians. Starting with the statistical modeling and analysis in Google’s demonstration, which we explain, we study various estimators of the fidelity, and different approaches to testing the distributions generated by the quantum computer. We propose different noise models, and discuss their implications. A preliminary study of the Google data, focusing mostly on circuits of 12 and 14 qubits is given in different parts of the paper.

arXiv:2008.05177Statistical ScienceJun 22, 202211 citations

Questions and Concerns About Google's Quantum Supremacy Claim

Gil Kalai, Yosef Rinott, Tomer Shoham

In October 2019, Nature published a paper [6] describing an experimental work that was performed at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer. Since then we have been involved in a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment. In [30] we studied Google's statistical framework that we found to be very sound and offered some technical improvements. This document describes three main concerns (based on statistical analysis) about the Google 2019 experiment. The first concern is that the data do not agree with Google's noise model (or any other specific model). The second concern is that a crucial simple formula for a priori estimation of the fidelity seems to involve an unexpected independence assumption, and yet it gives very accurate predictions. The third concern is about statistical properties of the calibration process.

arXiv:2305.01064May 1, 20231 citation

The Argument Against Quantum Computers, the Quantum Laws of Nature, and Google’s Supremacy Claims

Gil Kalai

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooksSep 18, 20240 citations

The Quantum Computer Puzzle (Expanded Version)

Gil Kalai

Quantum computers are hypothetical devices, based on quantum physics, that would enable us to perform certain computations hundreds of orders of magnitude faster than digital computers. This feature is coined as "quantum supremacy" and one aspect or another of such quantum computational supremacy might be brought about in experiments in the near future: by implementing quantum error-correction, systems of non-interacting bosons, exotic new phases of matter called anyons, quantum annealing, or in various other ways. A main concern regarding the feasibility of quantum computers is that quantum systems are inherently noisy: we cannot accurately control them, and we cannot accurately describe them. We will describe an optimistic hypothesis of quantum noise that would allow quantum computing and a pessimistic hypothesis that wouldn't. The quantum computer puzzle is deciding between these two hypotheses. Here is a brief summary of the author's pessimistic point of view as explained in the paper: understanding quantum computers in the presence of noise requires consideration of behavior at different scales. In the small scale, standard models of noise from the mid-90s are suitable, and quantum evolutions and states described by them manifest a very low-level computational power. This small-scale behavior has far-reaching consequences for the behavior of noisy quantum systems at larger scales. On the one hand, it does not allow reaching the starting points for quantum fault tolerance and quantum supremacy, making them both impossible at all scales. On the other hand, it leads to novel implicit ways for modeling noise at larger scales and to various predictions on the behavior of noisy quantum systems.

arXiv:1605.00992May 3, 20168 citations