Experimental signature of programmable quantum annealing · HackerPapers discussions

Experimental signature of programmable quantum annealing — mentioned by jessriedel

Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:11:47 GMT

> I think the paper is (perhaps a slightly different version of) this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739 in which the researchers found evidence that favours the hypothesis "the D-Wave device is doing quantum annealing" over the hypothesis "the D-Wave device is doing classical simulated annealing". > (though it's not clear to me how far they've ruled out other basically-classical processes) According to my colleagues at IBM Research, not far: > A pair of recent articles concluded that the D-Wave One machine actually operates in the quantum regime, rather than performing some classical…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Experimental signature of programmable quantum annealing — mentioned by gjm11

Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:40:43 GMT

This is "validated" in a pretty weak sense. I think the paper is (perhaps a slightly different version of) this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739 in which the researchers found evidence that favours the hypothesis "the D-Wave device is doing quantum annealing" over the hypothesis "the D-Wave device is doing classical simulated annealing". That's very interesting scientifically (though it's not clear to me how far they've ruled out other basically-classical processes) but it's important to notice what it isn't. It isn't evidence that D-Wave's device can perform the operations usually denoted…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Experimental signature of programmable quantum annealing — mentioned by greenmountin

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:13:57 GMT

This is false. I guarantee you, scientists would be very interested if they actually demonstrated entanglement. For example, in the slides of the linked talk, the presenter goes over a very general measure of entanglement which allows you to construct after-the-fact a "witness" of entanglement. It is respected theory, and a credible last-resort approach; no numbers. His latest preprint[1] doesn't have a clear claim either. The Newscientist section refers to a conference 2 weeks ago, without published abstracts, procedings, or video. I'll believe it when I see it (there's no indication Aram's…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.