What are people really thinking about quantum computing? While technical breakthroughs and cryptographic fears grab the spotlight, we’re missing something crucial: how the public understands and feels about this emerging technology. In this piece, Professor Sue Black explores insights from a recent LinkedIn survey asking whether people are concerned about quantum computing. The answers—ranging from alarm about encryption to hope for medical breakthroughs—reveal a complex mix of optimism, confusion, and urgency. Drawing on these responses and a podcast interview with tech entrepreneur Tom Ilube, Sue argues for a public education campaign. If we want a future where quantum computing serves everyone, it’s time to start the conversation beyond the lab.—Sue Black
What are people really thinking about quantum computing? While technical breakthroughs and cryptographic fears grab the spotlight, we’re missing something crucial: how the public understands and feels about this emerging technology. In this piece, Professor Sue Black explores insights from a recent LinkedIn survey asking whether people are concerned about quantum computing. The answers—ranging from alarm about encryption to hope for medical breakthroughs—reveal a complex mix of optimism, confusion, and urgency. Drawing on these responses and a podcast interview with tech entrepreneur Tom Ilube, Sue argues for a public education campaign. If we want a future where quantum computing serves everyone, it’s time to start the conversation beyond the lab.—Sue Black
Quantum Computing IS ALL THE RAGE. It seems like hardly a day goes by without some news outlet describing the extraordinary things this technology promises. Most commentators forget, or just gloss over, the fact that people have been working on quantum computing for decades-and without any practical results to show for it. t IBM notes that quantum computers could "provide breakthroughs in many disciplines, including materials and drug discovery, the optimization of complex systems, and artificial intelligence." Microsoft assures us that quantum computers will "forever alter our economic, industrial, academic, and societal landscape." And journalists repeatedly warn that quantum computers may soon break the encryption that protects the Internet. It has gotten to the point where many researchers in various fields of physics feel obliged to justify whatever work they are doing by claiming that it has some relevance to quantum computing.
Quantum Computing often described as one of the most exciting frontiers of modern science—a field that does not just push the boundaries of technology but also reshapes how we think about solving problems. Unlike classical computers, which process information in simple 0s and 1s, quantum mechanics, allowing a single qubit to explore multiple possibilities at the same time. This gives them the potential to perform calculations that would take even today’s most powerful supercomputers thousands of years. In recent years, progress has been rapid, with breakthroughs in hardware, algorithms and applications that range from developing new medicines to strengthening artificial intelligence and tackling climate change. Yet, enormous challenges remain, such as stabilizing fragile qubits, reducing error rates, and making these systems accessible beyond a handful of elite labs. This paper explores both the promises and the pitfalls of quantum computing, offering a closer look at how it could reshape industries, global security and even the pace of human innovation in the decades ahead.
The rapid growth of quantum information science and technology (QIST) in the 21st century has created both excitement and uncertainty about the field's trajectory. This qualitative study presents perspectives from leading quantum researchers, who are educators, on fundamental questions frequently posed by students, the public, and the media regarding QIST. Through in-depth interviews, we explored several issues related to QIST including the following key areas: the current state of quantum computing in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era and timelines for fault-tolerant quantum computers, the feasibility of personal quantum computers in our pockets, and promising qubit architectures for future development. Our findings reveal diverse yet convergent perspectives on these issues. While experts agree that the current machines with physical qubits that are being built currently should be called quantum computers, most estimated that it will take a decade to build a small fault-tolerant quantum computer, and several decades to achieve scalable systems capable of running Shor's factoring algorithm with quantum advantage. Regarding carrying a quantum computer in the pocket, experts viewed quantum computers as specialized tools that will remain in central locations such as data centers and can be accessed remotely for applications for which they are particularly effective compared to classical computers. Quantum researchers suggested that multiple platforms show promise, with no clear winner emerging. These insights provide valuable guidance for educators, policymakers, and the broader community in establishing realistic expectations for developments in this exciting field. Our findings can provide valuable information for educators to clarify student doubts about these important yet confusing issues related to quantum technologies.
These days, talk of quantum technologies and the coming ‘quantum revolution’ or ‘quantum leap’ is hard to miss. There is a broad agreement that quantum technologies have a high probability of becoming the next disruptive technological development, and the way they should be regulated and the timing of such intervention are issues that are attracting increasing attention. An analysis of how these questions are being considered now, in the early stages of technological development, can be valuable in predicting future lines of regulation, identifying their possible consequences and steering technological development in desirable directions. This article analyses academic scholarship on the regulation of quantum technology, with a focus on quantum computing, to identify common topics, values and positions on its governance in the academic literature and to discuss patterns that are emerging.
To remind you, this book is based on a course I taught in 2006. On the last day of class, I followed the great tradition pioneered by Richard Feynman, in which the last class should be one where you can ask the teacher anything. Feynman's rule was that you could ask about anything except politics, religion, or the final exam. In my case, there was no final exam, and I didn't even make politics or religion off-limits. This chapter collects some of the questions people asked me, together with my responses. Student: Do you often think about using computer science to limit or give us a hint about physical theories? Do you think that we'll be able to discover physical theories which give more powerful models than quantum computation? Scott: Is BQP the end of the road, or is there more to be found? That's a fantastic question, and I wish more people would think about it. I’m being a bit of a politician here and not answering directly, because obviously the answer is “I don't know.” I guess the whole idea with science is that if we don't know the answer, we don't try to sprout one out of our butt or something. We try to base our answers on something. So, everything we know is consistent with the idea that quantum computing is the end of the road. Greg Kuperberg had an analogy I really liked. He said that there are people who keep saying that we've gone from classical to quantum mechanics so what other surprises are in store? But maybe that's like first assuming the Earth is flat, and then on discovering that it's round, saying who knows, maybe it has the topology of a Klein bottle. There's a surprise in a given direction, but once you've assimilated it, there may not be any further surprise in that same direction.