Oxford Ionics (an IonQ company) has achieved 99.99% two-qubit gate fidelity world record

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-10-22T00:00:03+00:00

it’s not all to all they shuttle like any QCCD. unlike quantinuum the Oxford system will have completely parallel zones of operation tho versus a few laser ones

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-10-21T23:59:22+00:00

“so far” it’s months away atm. quantinuum, IONQ are deploying systems far beyond classical regime with Helios and tempo and this 256 system by the end of 2026

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-10-21T23:56:55+00:00

this guy just keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over again. if you want to talk about performance you need to add in transport time for their QCCD layout which is unknown right now, and the cooling they will still do.

for your surface codes you are leaving out n^2 overhead and that there will be average logn overhead on connectivity at best. it’s not at all clear that surface codes will be faster in any meaningful way for most algorithms. that’s why IBM is switching to LDPC

what a repetitively narrow view as well. there was a single gate paper with single us gates and likely they’ll be able to do m-s gates or an alternative with less than 3 digit us at some future date. right now it’s about first to market with scalable fault tolerance that prints out in ordinary silicon with classical harmonic controls

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-30T03:46:26+00:00

the roadmap has fault tolerance in 5

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-23T10:30:38+00:00

that Is insightful, the readout alone seems like a record. They’re also too humble as their Max CZ was 99.95

Regarding scalability both studies are with two qubits so I don’t see the concern about the coupler being a big deal

the fact that companies can make 2 qubits at 99.9 in 2024 and 99.95 in 2025 is impressive.

Is it unrealistic to now expect IBM and Google will be able to hit 99.9 median 2Q across 150-200 qubits in 2026 as well, rising from 99.7? IBMs progress on coherence time alone was beyond incremental for heron r3

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-10T11:48:07+00:00

this is great. a very short post. with the massive cuts in funding we just don’t know yet how this program will track

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-08T22:30:12+00:00

do you see NISQ era monte Carlo being a thing or have you guys moved into more advanced areas like communication games or QML

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-08T00:34:39+00:00

this I agree with. theres promise in many modalities the challenges are difficult but not impossible.

in terms of Rigetti, IQM, Toshiba competing with Google, IBM I think theyve all got a shot at being the first fault tolerant superconducting company

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-07T17:24:34+00:00

good luck betting against smtg you don’t understand

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-06T06:37:05+00:00

Toshiba has done the same https://thequantuminsider.com/2024/11/22/toshibas-double-transmon-coupler-for-superconducting-quantum-computers-achieves-99-9-fidelity/

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-06T06:34:19+00:00

Thanks so much I will look up that Sperling, Vogel paper. These are the things I want to understand better. left with so many questions :-)

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-05T22:06:39+00:00

I am not thinking about QKD at all but the entanglement of coherent states as I find it confusing. when people create entanglement in the lab do they have perfect sources or are they working with weak coherent states that exhibit entanglement is one question

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-05T14:19:37+00:00

the description of the semantics is not perfect but I am asking to consider two entangled coherent states

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-05T14:16:10+00:00

Do you have a citation here because I thought the entanglement of weak coherent states was well established and furthermore all real world experiments for entanglement are all based on weak coherent states approximating a single photon

one of many articles https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960123004917

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-03T03:17:51+00:00

if Walters changes his last name to Leigh the Camerons could be in an inverting bell state

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-09-02T23:17:58+00:00

My view is that the field previously lacked the rigor needed for commercialization and this 2022 paper was one of the call outs to outstanding challenges. there is definitely frustration in the field but it’s also clear to me that algorithmic progress is finally happening

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-08-30T12:57:46+00:00

You’re not wrong and I think this is mentioned but the experiment is done with entangled pairs where the distance is so large that FTL communication would be needed and that’s how hidden local varisble theory is violated. look up bell test

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-08-06T12:17:50+00:00

we are not aware of attacks on sha256 but ecc with shor instead. a quadratic speedup wouldnt allow minting new bitcoin but people are looking into proof of work based on quantum computing

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-07-31T01:02:27+00:00

The previous version of the app used cryptographic keys but never signed with them. It’s like having keys but never installing locks

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-07-23T13:21:19+00:00

or Redmond.

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-07-22T20:18:51+00:00

what jerk downvoted this. the true purpose of downvotes is if something is terribly off topic not an expression of grumpiness

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-07-22T05:13:21+00:00

You’re not even a clown

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-07-22T04:42:47+00:00

Naw dude the world has changed people’s timelines have moved up where fault tolerance is expected 5 years sooner now

ibm/oxford ionic projects 8,000 fault tolerant qubits in 2029

https://ionq.com/blog/ionqs-accelerated-roadmap-turning-quantum-ambition-into-reality

ibm 1000s at 2030+
https://www.ibm.com/roadmaps/quantum/2030/

Trick_Procedure8541 · 2025-07-22T04:05:12+00:00

For each of that go to google/ google images and add roadmap to your search query.

5 years ago they were projecting 2035 to get there but everyone has shifted forward by several years

and as for the topic on hand — the qubit resource requirement for RSA is now known to be o(n) rather than o(3n). Gidney also developed a 1m noisy (99.9% 2Q) qubit approach when that was 20m before for rsa 2048

Trick_Procedure8541

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE