Waiting for the Quantum Simulation Revolution

Koen Bertels, Turki, Emma, Tamara Sarac +2 more

Given the impending timeline of developing good-quality quantum processing units, it is time to rethink the approach to advance quantum computing research. Rather than waiting for quantum hardware technologies to mature, we need to start assessing in tandem the impact of the occurrence of quantum computing, or rather Quantum Computing Logic (QC-Logic), on various scientific fields. This is where the subtitle comes from. A new scientific revolution is unfolding. In making real scientific progress, we need to use an additional and complementary approach, which the NISQ program or any follow-up approach does not propose. We must be aware that defining, implementing, and testing quantum concepts in any field is tremendous work. The main reason is that QC initiates an overall revolution in all scientific fields, and how those machines will be used in daily life is a very big challenge. That is why we propose a complete update of the first PISQ paper. We still advocate the additional PISQ approach: Perfect Intermediate-Scale Quantum computing based on a well-established concept of perfect qubits. We expand the quantum road map with (N)FTQC, which stands for (Non) Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing. This will allow researchers to focus exclusively on developing new applications by defining the algorithms in terms of perfect qubits and evaluating them in two ways. Either executed on quantum computing simulators executed on supercomputers or hardware-based qubit chips. This approach will be explained in this paper. Our planet needs a long-term vision and solution. It will enable universities and companies alike to accelerate the development of new quantum algorithms, build the necessary know-how, and thus address one of the key bottlenecks within the quantum industry: the lack of talent to develop well-tested quantum applications.

Avshalom C. Elitzur

This paper purports to make a counter-revolution in physics. In a decisive and self-assured manner it points out a series of alleged basic errors committed by some of quantum mechanics’ founders. The author’s main criticism addresses the classic Einstein-PodolskyRosen paper. In this paper’s 6 equation he ”immediately” spots an error. This error, he goes on to contend, was followed by all the papers that followed the EPR paper over the decades, all of which ”prove nothing”. Thus, we had to wait 72 years for Ignatovich to realize that Einstein et al. merely misunderstood the uncertainty principle! Not even Einstein’s sharpest critics, among them Bohr and Heisenberg, noticed this misunderstanding. Moreover, Bell, Bohm & Aharonov, Aspect and all their followers to this day just wasted their time continuing Einstein et al.’s alleged error, to which the author generously

Immanuel Bloch

E. Solano

Kimmo Luoma, Kari Härkönen, Sabrina Maniscalco +2 more

Simulation methods based on stochastic realizations of state vector evolutions are commonly used tools to solve open quantum system dynamics, both in the Markovian and non-Markovian regimes. Here, we address the question of the waiting time distribution (WTD) of quantum jumps for non-Markovian systems. We generalize Markovian quantum trajectory methods in the sense of deriving an exact analytical WTD for non-Markovian quantum dynamics and show explicitly how to construct this distribution for certain commonly used quantum optical systems.