Ciro Santilli @cirosantilli  40

TODO synonym to analog quantum computer?

It is also possible to carry out quantum computing without qubits using processes with a continuous spectrum of measurement.

As of 2020, these approaches seem less developed/promising, but who knows.

These computers can be seen as analogous to classical non-quantum analog computers.

Similar to quantum supremacy, but add the goal that the computation must be useful, i.e. make money or solve some open mathematical problem, Ciro Santilli's wife was quite excited about the possibility of finding some counter examples in number theory with quantum computers.

One of the four following states:

When unqualified as in "the Bell state", it generally just means $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$.

The Bell states are entangled and non-separable. Intuitively, we can see that when we measure that state, the values of the first and second bit are strictly correlated. This is the hallmark of quantum computation: making up states where qubits are highly correlated to match a specific algorithmic answer, and opposed to uniformly random noise. For example, the Bell state circuit is a common hello world, e.g. it is used in the official Qiskit hello world.

Python library, claims multiple backends, including simulation and real IBM quantum computer.

Some people call it "operating System".

The main parts of those systems are:

One key insight, is that the matrix of a non-trivial quantum circuit is going to be huge, and won't fit into any amount classical memory that can be present in this universe.

This is because the matrix is exponential in the number qubits, and $2^{100}$ is more than the number of atoms in the universe!

Therefore, off the bat we know that we cannot possibly describe those matrices in an explicit form, but rather must use some kind of shorthand.

But it gets worse.

Even if we had enough memory, the act of explicitly computing the matrix is not generally possible.

This is because knowing the matrix, basically means knowing the probability result for all possible $2^N$ outputs for each of the $2^N$ possible inputs.

But if we had those probabilities, our algorithmic problem would already be solved in the first place! We would "just" go over each of those output probabilities (OK, there are $2^N$ of those, which is also an insurmountable problem in itself), and the largest probability would be the answer.

So if we could calculate those probabilities on a classical machine, we would also be able to simulate the quantum computer on the classical machine, and quantum computing would not be able to give exponential speedups, which we know it does.

To see this, consider that for a given input, say 000 on a 3 qubit machine, the corresponding 8-sized quantum state looks like:and therefore when you multiply it by the unitary matrix of the quantum circuit, what you get is the first column of the unitary matrix of the quantum circuit. And 001, gives the second column and so on.

As a result, to prove that a quantum algorithm is correct, we need to be a bit smarter than "just calculate the full matrix".

Which is why you should now go and read: Section "Quantum algorithm".

This type of thinking links back to how physical experiments relate to quantum computing: a quantum computer realizes a physical experiment to which we cannot calculate the probabilities of outcomes without exponential time.

So for example in the case of a photonic quantum computer, you are not able to calculate from theory the probability that photons will show up on certain wires or not.

One direct practical reason is that we need to map the matrix to real quantum hardware somehow, and all quantum hardware designs so far and likely in the future are gate-based: you manipulate a small number of qubits at a time (2) and add more and more of such operations.

While there are "quantum compilers" to increase the portability of quantum programs, it is to be expected that programs manually crafted for a specific hardware will be more efficient just like in classic computers.

TODO: is there any clear reason why computers can't beat humans in approximating any unitary matrix with a gate set?

This is analogous to what classic circuit programmers will do, by using smaller logic gates to create complex circuits, rather than directly creating one huge truth table.

The most commonly considered quantum gates take 1, 2, or 3 qubits as input.

The gates themselves are just unitary matrices that operate on the input qubits and produce the same number of output qubits.

For example, the matrix for the CNOT gate, which takes 2 qubits as input is:

The final question is then: if I have a 2 qubit gate but an input with more qubits, say 3 qubits, then what does the 2 qubit gate (4x4 matrix) do for the final big 3 qubit matrix (8x8)? In order words, how do we scale quantum gates up to match the total number of qubits?

The intuitive answer is simple: we "just" extend the small matrix with a larger identity matrix so that the sum of the probabilities third bit is unaffected.

More precisely, we likely have to extend the matrix in a way such that the partial measurement of the original small gate qubits leaves all other qubits unaffected.

For example, if the circuit were made up of a CNOT gate operating on the first and second qubits as in:

then we would just extend the 2x2 CNOT gate to:

TODO lazy to properly learn right now. Apparently you have to use the Kronecker product by the identity matrix. Also, zX-calculus appears to provide a powerful alternative method in some/all cases.

Bibliography:

Just like a classic programmer does not need to understand the intricacies of how transistors are implemented and CMOS semiconductors, the quantum programmer does not understand physical intricacies of the underlying physical implementation.

The main difference to keep in mind is that quantum computers cannot save and observe intermediate quantum state, so programming a quantum computer is basically like programming a combinatorial-like circuit with gates that operate on (qu)bits:

For this reason programming a quantum computer is much like programming a classical combinatorial circuit as you would do with SPICE, verilog-or-vhdl, in which you are basically describing a graph of gates that goes from the input to the output

For this reason, we can use the words "program" and "circuit" interchangeably to refer to a quantum program

Also remember that and there is no no clocks in combinatorial circuits because there are no registers to drive; and so there is no analogue of clock in the quantum system either,

Another consequence of this is that programming quantum computers does not look like programming the more "common" procedural programming languages such as C or Python, since those fundamentally rely on processor register / memory state all the time.

Quantum programmers can however use classic languages to help describe their quantum programs more easily, for example this is what happens in Qiskit, where you write a Python program that makes Qiskit library calls that describe the quantum program.

Just like as for classic gates, we would like to be able to select quantum computer physical implementations that can represent one or a few gates that can be used to create any quantum circuit.

Unfortunately, in the case of quantum circuits this is obviously impossible, since the space of N x N unitary matrices is infinite and continuous.

Therefore, when we say that certain gates form a "set of universal quantum gates", we actually mean that "any unitary matrix can be approximated to arbitrary precision with enough of these gates".

Or if you like fancy Mathy words, you can say that the subgroup of the unitary group generated by our basic gate set is a dense subset of the unitary group.

This gate set alone is not a set of universal quantum gates.

Notably, circuits containing those gates alone can be fully simulated by classical computers according to the Gottesman-Knill theorem, so there's no way they could be universal.

This means that if we add any number of Clifford gates to a quantum circuit, we haven't really increased the complexity of the algorithm, which can be useful as a transformational device.

A popular set of universal quantum gates derived from Clifford gates is Clifford plus T.

Does not require entangled particles, unlike E91 which does.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_key_distribution&oldid=1079513227#BB84_protocol:_Charles_H._Bennett_and_Gilles_Brassard_(1984) explains it well. Basically:

Requires entangled particles, unlike BB84 which does not.

TODO original experiment?

Laughlin paper: 1981 Quantized Hall conductivity in two dimensions.

Shows a cool new type of matter: Abelian anyons.