<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:25 AM, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
<p class="gmail-m_305648593305085761gmail-p1">This is a real quantum computer, two of them actually, finding a solution to a problem that a conventional computer can't. Neither is as versatile as a conventional computer so they can't yet be programed to work on any sort of problem but I can't see any reason in principle they can't be before long.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>Well, the title of one the papers is "Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator", so I don't see how it's a real quantum computer. I can't make sense of the paper since I don't have any background in quantum physics.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Here's a quote:</div><div><br></div><div><i>"The realization of fully controlled, coherent many-body quantum systems is an outstanding challenge in science and engineering. <b>As quantum simulators</b>, they can provide insights into strongly correlated quantum systems and the role of quantum entanglement1, and enable realizations and studies of new states of matter, even away from equilibrium. <b>These systems also form the basis of the realization of quantum information processors</b>2. Although basic building blocks of such processors have been demonstrated in systems of a few coupled qubits3,4,5, the current challenge is to increase the number of coherently coupled qubits to potentially perform tasks that are beyond the reach of modern classical machines." [emphasis mine]</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div>Which seems to contradict itself but that's probably just because I'm not understanding something.</div><div><br></div><div>-Dave</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>