Can we get Gil’s thoughts on three models, not all related: the early NMR experiments by Chuang et al, the adiabatic model of QC, and the braiding model for nonabelian anyons
Are there fundamental critiques for those as well?
Thank you Gil for this amazing talk (like usual)!! I am wondering what do you think the most urgent task for big quantum companies is, in order to give a solid hope for the community who believes in the short term availability of fully functioning quantum computers?
Prof. Kalai, Can you please think of how to discourage people from dreaming that the quantum entanglement can be created at macroscale - e.g., two people (Alice and Bob) can be quantum-entangled on the Internet and one can observe Alice to predict what Bob will do. How do we explain that this is a question what we should not pose? Thanks!
From a mathematical or physical perspective is there any prospect of a Maxwell demon type argument to delineate impossible devices? For instance in quantum processing, we have the Margolus Leviton theorem which bounds the # of computations possible per second per joule but that is a very loose bound; might such bounds be tightened in ways specific to physical systems, etc?
How much of the underlying theory depends on the behavior of bosons? QCD is uncomputable in its own right
A lot of the D-wave experiments failed because they essentially overheated the system; did they merely just execute poorly, or is there a foundational problem with the adiabatic model as well? Ostensibly adiabatic models try to get away from the problems of error rates and threshold issues in the circuit model.
Thank you for a great presentation Professor Kalai