航空航天港

 找回密码
 注册会员

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

楼主: i2000s
收起左侧

[科技专项] 国家重大科技专项量子信息与量子计算专题:洲际量子通信干线开通

[复制链接]
ssizz 发表于 2016-8-19 16:55 | 显示全部楼层
非局域量子模拟器让信息以1.9倍光速传输
2016年08月19日 08:13:50  来源: 科技日报
评论0
打印
字大
字小
  中国科学技术大学中科院量子信息重点实验室李传锋教授研究组首次研制出非局域量子模拟器并模拟宇称—时间(Parity-time, PT)世界中的超光速现象。该成果首次展示了非局域性在量子模拟中的重要作用,完成了经典计算机无法模拟的任务,该成果在线发表在近日的英国《自然·光子学》杂志上。

  据了解,量子模拟器是解决特定问题的专用量子计算机,它最初由费曼于1981年提出。他认为自然界本质上是遵循量子力学的,只有用量子模拟器才能更好地模拟它。本成果首次揭示量子模拟器的另一个重要优势,即量子非局域特性。研究组构建的非局域量子模拟器可以用来研究一些量子物理基本问题,对这类问题经典计算机在原理上是无法求解的。

  宇称—时间(PT)对称理论是由美国物理学家卡尔·班德等人于2002年对量子力学进行推广而提出的。我们知道量子力学是基于一系列假定的,那么其中哪些假定可以放宽呢?班德等人认为哈密顿量的厄米性假定要求过严,可以放宽到用PT对称性假定代替,即假定哈密顿量具有空间—时间反演对称性。根据这一理论,我们现在认识的量子世界只是PT世界的一种特殊情况(具有厄米性)。李传锋研究组在实验上模拟了一个这样的PT世界。他们将纠缠光子对分发到两个相距25米的实验室构建非局域量子模拟器。除了纠缠光子对外,他们的量子模拟器还由一系列量子逻辑门及一个后选择操作构成。通过后选择(成功几率50%),他们使纠缠光子对中的一个光子进行PT对称演化。量子模拟结果表明,利用量子纠缠“幽灵般的超距作用”,光子的PT对称演化能使信息以超过1.9倍的光速从一个实验室传输到另一个实验室。当然进一步的结果证实,如果考虑整个系统(包括成功部分和失败部分),则总体信息的传输速度是不能超过光速的。

  本成果同时揭示出了两个基本而有趣的问题:一是在现实世界中能否找到符合PT对称演化的量子系统,一旦找到则意味着有可能进行超光速通讯;二是在“幽灵般的超距作用”与超光速通讯之间,是否能容下一个比量子力学更基本的理论。(记者吴长锋)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/2016-08/19/c_129241448.htm
 楼主| i2000s 发表于 2016-8-22 06:00 | 显示全部楼层
红水兵 发表于 2016-8-17 14:39
测不准原理不是这么用的,发射和接受单光子也早就成为了一门技术,没什么淡好扯。

另外,A和B能纠缠, ...

对,纠缠体A和B中的B可以继续跟C再纠缠,C同样可以继续跟D再纠缠。。。这是quantum repeater的基本原理,理论和实验都比较成熟。算是光量子中继通信的基本构成单元,也是量子存储器的一种方案。
lemoncap 发表于 2016-8-25 22:15 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lemoncap 于 2016-8-25 22:19 编辑

转发一个《自然》关于 Templeton (某神棍)  和有些“科学家”如 Anton Zeilinger 的研究的关系
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Templeton leaves controversial legacy

Philanthropist's influential foundation will continue his mission to explore the space between science and faith

Geoff Brumfiel

John Haught is a true believer. As a theologian at Georgetown University in Washington DC specializing in the study of science and faith, he laboured in obscurity for years until wealthy philanthropist and devout Christian John Templeton arrived on the scene. Templeton flooded Haught's field with money, and the researcher suddenly found himself invited to conferences and lectures around the world. "He's utterly changed my life from being a lonely university professor to being internationally connected," says Haught.

John Templeton
Philanthropist John Templeton, who died this week aged 95M. LEDERHANDLER/AP/PA Photos
When John M. Templeton died this week at the age of 95, he left behind an indelible mark on both scientific and religious studies. The John Templeton Foundation has a US$1.5 billion endowment and a mandate for "engaging life's biggest questions". Although it has striven towards reconciling science and faith, the foundation has also funded research into fields as diverse as cosmology, quantum mechanics, psychology and biology.

The work often extends beyond pure science to get at bigger issues of purpose, according to Paul Davies, a physicist at Arizona State University in Tempe, who is a trustee of the foundation and a past Templeton prize winner. "He thought that science is a great way of illuminating deep issues," Davies says.

But the foundation's tireless promotion of connections between science and theology has attracted its share of critics. "A lot of scientists like myself believe that science and religion don't belong together," says Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University in New York City. "The Templeton foundation seems to be full of people who are sincere and well-intentioned," adds Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. "I just think that they are wrong."

Early foundations

Templeton was born in a small Tennessee town to devout Presbyterian parents. He supported himself through Yale during the Great Depression and amassed a fortune by buying stocks in United States industries during the Second World War. Later, he vastly grew his wealth through overseas investments. In 1992, he sold his business to Franklin Resources for $913 million. Templeton himself reportedly made $440 million from the deal.

He began the Templeton Prize in 1972, which is awarded to researchers making "progress towards research or discoveries about spiritual realities". In 1987, he formed the John Templeton Foundation with a similar mandate. Although the foundation is often accused by critics of promoting a role for religion in science, Davies says that Templeton's true goal was to use the tools of scientific thinking to modernize religion.

The foundation's mandate has led it to back some unusual scientific projects. Anton Zeilinger, a quantum physicist at the University of Vienna in Austria, has used Templeton money to bring philosophers to his laboratory to help resolve contradictory interpretations of quantum mechanics. Derek Burke, a former vice-chancellor of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, heads an initiative examining the emergence of biological complexity. It's the sort of work Britain's research councils would have shied away from, Burke says. "They are very sensitive and troubled by [the idea] of purpose in the world."

Some believe that Templeton's scientific funding has over-hyped marginal fields, at times with damaging consequences. For example, the foundation has poured money into studying 'positive psychology', seeking to quantify the benefits of a positive outlook. "It's not terrible research, but it's certainly not Nobel-quality research," says James Coyne, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Coyne, who studies cancer patients, is especially critical of foundation-sponsored work showing that positive attitudes can extend lives. The work, which was eventually disproved by more extensive studies, may have put further pressure on the terminally ill to present a positive outlook, he says.

Davies concedes that the Foundation often directs its roughly $70 million in annual grants towards research that is outside the mainstream. But its FQXi institute has funded cutting-edge cosmology, he points out. "When they get it right," he says, "they get it very right."

Culture clash

It is Templeton's heavy investment in science and religious studies that brings the most criticism. "It's taken a relatively modest field and put so much cash into it that it's now become an industry," says John Horgan, a science writer at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey, and past winner of a Templeton journalism fellowship in science and religion. Horgan says that during the fellowship, he saw speakers promoting the compatibility of science and religion in ways that seemed forced. "There was an illusion of potential harmony between the two sides," he says.

But John Haught disagrees. Most Americans, and indeed most people in the world, follow a religion, he says, and as long as the apparent incompatibilities between science and religion remain, theories such as Darwinian evolution will not gain wider acceptance. The Templeton foundation's work is helping to bridge that gap, he says: "I don't know if I can measure this, but I do know anecdotally that a lot of people have changed their views."
lemoncap 发表于 2016-8-25 22:22 | 显示全部楼层
i2000s 发表于 2016-8-22 06:00
对,纠缠体A和B中的B可以继续跟C再纠缠,C同样可以继续跟D再纠缠。。。这是quantum repeater的基本原理, ...

是的,某些人可以指定 某些目标按照量子力学,其它按照经典力学。最后都是神棍说了算。
lemoncap 发表于 2016-8-25 22:41 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lemoncap 于 2016-8-25 22:46 编辑

再转发一个《自然》的2013年的一个消息。 可以看出即使当前The Templeton foundationAnton Zeilinger 的一系列行为的关系
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experts still split about what quantum theory means
Poll reveals diverse views about foundational questions in physics.

Philip Ball
11 January 2013
Article toolsRights & Permissions

Godany
Physicist Anton Zeilinger polled colleagues on their (often comedically) opposite interpretations of quantum physics
Quantum theory was first devised more than a hundred years ago, but even experts still have little idea what it means, according to a poll reported in a recent, and unusually entertaining, preprint on the physics arXiv server1.

The tongue-in-cheek poll of 33 key thinkers on the fundamentals of quantum theory shows that opinions on some of the most profound questions in the field are fairly evenly split over several quite different answers.

For example, votes were roughly evenly split between those who believe that, in some cases, “physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement” and those who believe that they never do. And despite the famous idea that observation of quantum systems plays a key role in determining their behaviour, 21% felt that “the observer should play no fundamental role whatsoever”.

Observers observed
Related stories
Quantum theorem shakes foundations
Physicists propose 'Schrödinger's virus' experiment
Physics: Quantum all the way
More related stories
Nonetheless, “I was actually surprised that there was so much agreement on some questions,” says physicist Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna, who organized the meeting in Austria in July 2011 at which the poll was taken.

The meeting, supported by the Templeton Foundation based in West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, brought together physicists, mathematicians and philosophers interested in the meanings of quantum theory. Zeilinger, together with Maximilian Schlosshauer, now at the University of Portland, Oregon, and Johannes Kofler at the Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, devised the poll, in which attendees were given 16 multiple-choice questions on key foundational issues in quantum theory.

Disagreements over the theory’s interpretation have existed ever since it was first developed, but Zeilinger and his colleagues believe that their poll might be the first to interrogate the full range of views held by experts. A previous poll at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop in Baltimore asked attendees the single question of which interpretation of quantum theory they favoured most2.

Probably the most famous dispute about what quantum theory means was that between Albert Einstein and his peers, especially the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, on the question of whether the world was fundamentally probabilistic rather than deterministic, as quantum theory seemed to imply. One of the few issues in the new poll on which there was something like a consensus was that Einstein was wrong.

Bohr, along with Werner Heisenberg, offered the first comprehensive interpretation of quantum theory in the 1920s: the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. This proposed that the physical world is unknowable and in some sense indeterminate, and the only meaningful reality is what we can access experimentally. As at the earlier Baltimore meeting, the Austrian poll found the Copenhagen interpretation to be favoured over others, but even so it was only held by 42% of the voters. However, 42% also admitted that they had switched interpretation at least once. And whereas a few decades ago the options were very few, says Schlosshauer, “today there are more ‘sub-views’.”

Charting the unknowable
Perhaps the most striking implication of the poll is that, while quantum theory is one of the most successful and quantitatively accurate theories in science, interpreting it is as fraught now as it was at the outset. “Nothing has really changed, even though we have seen some pretty radical new developments happening in quantum physics, from quantum information theory to experiments that demonstrate quantum phenomena for ever-larger objects”, says Schlosshauer. “Some thought such developments would push people one way or the other in their interpretations, but I don't think there’s much evidence of that happening.”

However, he says there was pretty good agreement on some questions. “More than two-thirds believed that there is no fundamental limit to quantum theory — that it should be possible for objects, no matter how big, to be prepared in quantum superpositions like Schrödinger’s cat. So the era where quantum theory was associated only with the atomic realm appears finally over.”

Other notable views were that 42% thought that it would take 10–25 years to develop a useful quantum computer, whereas 30% placed the estimate at 25–50 years. And the much debated role of measurement in quantum theory — how and why measurements affect outcomes — split the votes many ways, with 24% regarding it as a severe difficulty and 27% as a “pseudoproblem”.

Zeilinger and colleagues do not claim that their poll is rigorous or necessarily representative of all quantum researchers. John Preskill, a specialist in quantum information theory at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, suspects that “a broader poll of physicists might have given rather different results”.

Are such polls useful? “I don’t know”, says Preskill, “but they’re fun.” “Perhaps the fact that quantum theory does its job so well and yet stubbornly refuses to answer our deeper questions contains a lesson in itself,” says Schlosshauer. Possibly the most revealing answer was that 48% believed that there will still be conferences on the foundations of quantum theory in 50 years time.
 楼主| i2000s 发表于 2016-9-18 07:43 | 显示全部楼层
9月15日发射的天宫二号上搭载了高精度的冷原子钟和量子密钥分发实验机构。如果这次是要在空间站验证量子密钥分发机构的可在线更新性,而且据说这次天宫二号只在下个月对接一次载人飞船,将来是否意味着量子分发机构实际上无法在线更新硬件?或者如果要更新硬件,也必须在神州十一号前完成各种实验并提出下一步的更新方案?考虑到此前发射的量子通信试验卫星尚未完成预计历时3个月的在轨测试,相关量子通信任务恐怕在神舟十一号发射前有效开展,这是否意味着所谓的在线更新硬件的假想并不存在,而搭载的量子密钥分发机构或许更侧重于验证不同或者稍微改进于此前量子卫星的分发机构机制?

当然,神舟飞船是否有进一步发射并与天宫二号对接计划,或许并不明确。毕竟飞船上有高等植物全过程生长发育过程的实验,据有关报道,有可能将太空种子采集回地面。2018年天和一号空间站核心舱发射后(http://www.chinaspaceflight.com/China-Launch-Schedule.html)),天宫二号尚有在轨工作可能。神舟十二号尚有与两舱分别对接的潜力。也许现在下结论尚早。希望有知情人士澄清。
lemoncap 发表于 2016-9-18 10:16 | 显示全部楼层
“量子”通讯的作用肯定不会像有人吹的那样神。今后的实验肯定也会证明所谓”光量子不可分、复制、截获“,也不过是统计意义上的近似。这些太空实验作为量子光学和太空探索的发展,可以支持,在不过度浪费科研经费的前提下。
天外新村 发表于 2016-10-13 16:19 | 显示全部楼层
尹浩院士:星地一体量子通信网2030年可应用

http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2016/10/358241.shtm
法制晚报讯(记者 耿学清)在我国发射的世界首颗量子科学实验卫星“墨子号”顺利在轨测试的同时,2016年中国量子信息技术产业发展论坛昨天在京召开。与会科学家表示,预计2020年区域量子通信网络可成熟应用,2030星地一体的量子通信可投入应用,量子信息科技革命给了我国在信息技术方面从跟踪者和模仿者转变成未来信息技术时代引领者的伟大机遇。

论坛上,中国科学院三位院士尹浩、杜江峰和房建成分别分享了量子通信、量子计算和精密测量,以及量子传感等量子信息技术的发展前沿和应用进展。

8月16日我国成功发射的世界首颗量子科学实验卫星——墨子号,如今在轨测试一切良好。预计在11月中旬将完成全部在轨测试工作,之后卫星交付,开始科学实验。量子卫星的主要科学目标是借助卫星平台,进行星地高速量子密钥分发实验,并在此基础上进行广域量子密钥网络实验,以期在空间量子通信实用化方面取得重大突破。

中国科学院院士、通信与量子技术专家尹浩对我国量子通信的应用时间表进行了展望:到2020年,区域量子通信网络可成熟应用,星地一体的光宇量子通信网络则可在2030年投入应用。

尹浩表示,我国在经典信息技术时代,基本上处于落后、跟踪和模仿水平,始终处于产业分工格局的低端,新一轮的量子信息科技革命给了我们一个从跟踪者和模仿者转变成未来信息技术时代引领者的伟大机遇,我国必须通过实施量子通信和量子计算机国家重大科技专项,积极抢占量子信息技术国际激烈竞争的制高点。

在高峰对话环节,量子卫星工程首席科学家潘建伟院士与国科控股、神州信息、阿里巴巴的企业家们一起探讨了从“科学”到“应用”到“产业”的发展之路,并就量子信息产业发展的机遇和挑战,以及如何构筑健康产业生态发表了观点。国家电网信通部主任王继业、中国银监会信息科技监管部副主任单继进分别就量子信息技术在电力行业和银行业的创新应用做了主题报告。

此外,中国信息协会量子信息分会在论坛上宣告成立,科大国盾量子总裁赵勇任首届会长、中国信息协会副秘书长傅伯岩任常务副会长。
 楼主| i2000s 发表于 2016-10-16 10:13 | 显示全部楼层
据悉,美国将于明年发射量子太空实验平台,主要用于在太空实现波色爱因斯坦凝聚态并验证相对论效应下的一些基本的量子现象。
zhh894217 发表于 2017-5-3 13:25 | 显示全部楼层
世界首台超越早期经典计算机的光量子计算机在我国诞生
我要分享  

文章来源:量子信息与量子科技创新研究院    发布时间:2017-05-03  【字号: 小  中  大 】

  5月3日,中国科学院在上海召开新闻发布会,宣布世界首台超越早期经典计算机的光量子计算机在我国诞生。

  中科院院士、中国科学技术大学教授潘建伟及其同事陆朝阳、朱晓波等,联合浙江大学教授王浩华研究组,近期在基于光子和超导体系的量子计算机研究方面取得了系列突破性进展。在光学体系方面,研究团队在2016年首次实现十光子纠缠操纵的基础上,利用高品质量子点单光子源构建了世界首台超越早期经典计算机的单光子量子计算机在超导体系方面,研究团队打破了之前由谷歌、美国国家航空航天局(NASA)和加州大学圣塔芭芭拉分校(UCSB)公开报道的九个超导量子比特的操纵,实现了目前世界上最大数目的十个超导量子比特的纠缠,并在超导量子处理器上实现了快速求解线性方程组的量子算法。相关系列成果发表于国际学术期刊《自然-光子学》和《物理评论快报》上。

  量子计算利用量子相干叠加原理,在原理上具有超快的并行计算和模拟能力,计算能力随可操纵的粒子数呈指数增长,可为经典计算机无法解决的大规模计算难题提供有效解决方案。一台操纵50个微观粒子的量子计算机,对特定问题的处理能力可超过超级计算机。量子计算技术主要通过发展高精度、高效率的量子态制备与相互作用控制技术,实现规模化量子比特的相干操纵。由于其巨大的潜在价值,欧美各国都在积极整合各方面研究力量和资源,开展协同攻关,同时,谷歌、微软、IBM等大型高科技公司也强势介入量子计算研究。

  多粒子纠缠的操纵作为量子计算的技术制高点,一直是国际角逐的焦点。在光子体系方面潘建伟团队在多光子纠缠领域始终保持着国际领先水平,并于2016年底把纪录刷新至十光子纠缠。在此基础上,团队利用自主发展的综合性能国际最优的量子点单光子源,通过电控可编程的光量子线路,构建了针对多光子“玻色取样”任务的光量子计算原型机。实验测试表明,该原型机的“玻色取样”不仅比之前国际同行所有类似实验提速至少24000倍,同时,通过和经典算法比较,也比人类历史上第一台电子管计算机(ENIAC)和第一台晶体管计算机(TRADIC)运行速度快10-100倍。5月2日,该研究成果以长文的形式在线发表于《自然-光子学》。这是历史上第一台超越早期经典计算机的基于单光子的量子模拟机,为最终实现超越经典计算能力的量子计算这一被国际学术界称为“量子称霸”的目标,奠定了坚实的基础。朝着这一目标,潘建伟团队计划在今年年底实现大约20个光量子比特的操纵。

  在超导体系方面,2015年,谷歌、NASA和UCSB宣布实现了9个超导量子比特的高精度操纵,这一记录在2017年被中国科学家团队首次打破。朱晓波、王浩华和陆朝阳、潘建伟等合作,自主研发了10比特超导量子线路样品,通过高精度脉冲控制和全局纠缠操作,成功实现了目前世界上最大数目的超导量子比特的多体纯纠缠,并通过层析测量方法完整地刻画了十比特量子态。研究团队进一步利用超导量子线路演示了求解线性方程组的量子算法,证明了通过量子计算的并行性加速求解线性方程组的可行性,相关成果即将发表于《物理评论快报》。研究团队目前正致力于20个超导量子比特样品的设计、制备和测试,并计划于今年年底前发布量子云计算平台。

  上述工作由中国科大、浙江大学、中科院物理研究所等协同完成,受到中科院-阿里巴巴量子计算实验室、国家自然科学基金委、科技部和教育部2011计划等资助。
http://www.cas.cn/tt/201705/t20170503_4598998.shtml
fly2014 发表于 2017-5-4 09:11 | 显示全部楼层
量子计算机觉得好玄幻。不知道怎么工作的
fly2014 发表于 2017-5-4 09:11 | 显示全部楼层
10年以后,估计可以商用了。
3431 发表于 2017-5-4 10:11 来自航空航天港手机版! | 显示全部楼层
fly2014 发表于 2017-5-4 09:11
量子计算机觉得好玄幻。不知道怎么工作的

本来量子力学就给人感觉是门玄学 不过物理学的东西很多都是反自觉的 根据直觉下结论的亚里士多德基本全错
丙辰之龙 发表于 2017-5-4 16:51 | 显示全部楼层
这东西离上映运用还有多大距离,感觉上很遥远
3431 发表于 2017-5-4 17:22 来自航空航天港手机版! | 显示全部楼层
丙辰之龙 发表于 2017-5-4 16:51
这东西离上映运用还有多大距离,感觉上很遥远

那是 46发明电脑大规模商用都七几八几的事了
 楼主| i2000s 发表于 2017-5-8 03:46 | 显示全部楼层
Google今年计划完成49量子比特的量子计算机研发。目前经典超级计算机能够模拟的最大规模量子计算机是49比特,如果实验室能够实现高于49比特的量子计算机,任何经典计算机都无法模拟其运算。从外部的信息看,我认为国内搞得量子计算机侧重于某些固定结构的算法实现,所以能否通用,尚无法下结论。此前的报道有标题党嫌疑。

量子计算机跟经典计算机的最大不同在于实现了微弱量子态的制备和控制,其很多效应意味着经典计算机算法的终结。比如,量状态不能复制(non-cloning principle),其结果意味着经典计算机算法里面常用的将一个变量复制到另一个变量的复制操作不再适用于量子计算机;而且经典计算机的循环和条件操作因为必须要测量比特信息,在量子计算机里面这种操作就意味着对量子态的破坏(collapse)或塌缩,所以也不能在量子计算机里面用。而量子计算机对具体问题的运算就需要不断的对自己的线路结构不断的变化和调正,每一种结构对应解决一种特定的问题,而不是基于对比特态测量后的结果再行判断下一步要将晶体管的开关转换到什么状态。据我所知,在实验室要制备是个光子的纠缠态尚且需要大量的准备时间,而且可重复性比较困难,如何将这些操作自动化/精细化/可控化,也许还有很长的路要走。

另外,要实现一个或者若干个量子态的操作尚且困难,要实现这些量子态的可纠错操作将更加困难。量子态从某种意义上说,是极其脆弱的,很容易受到外界环境波动的影响,量子纠错作为一个必要的措施来抵抗各种错误的发生是实现通用量子计算机的重要条件。这就像去实现一个复杂的系统--比如像组织一个国家的运行,即使每个关键的部件或者人有时候变得并不可靠,但只要在系统侧面上有足够的冗余性和优化选择的机制,整个系统仍然是可靠的。所以最终量子计算机的每一个量子比特都要配以若干的系统冗余来对抗各种单元部件和单步操作的内秉失误率,以实现系统级的可靠性。特别是对某些计算来说,由于其计算结果已经超过了任何经典超级计算机所能模拟验证的极限,如果量子计算机不能证明其本身是可靠的,没人能够简单认可或证实其计算结果是否有价值。其因增加可靠性而要付出的代价几乎是指数级增长的,所以更高量子比特位通用量子计算的实现并非比10个量子比特位系统更简单,或者难度线性增加,而是更高数量级的更加困难。

国内大众看到目前我们在量子卫星以及若干量子计算领域突破点等方面的进步而欢呼雀跃,但现实是我们在一些关键的系统设计/基础元器件和自动化量子操控等领域尚缺乏人才和知识基础,而且没有高效的组织方式。将来即使实验室可以实现更高比特位量子计算的演示,要实现能够拿来用的工程计算机,我们未必有比较踏实的基础准备。IBM前期发布的5个量子比特的在线系统,让更多人可以提交任何计算操作请求,我认为目的有两个:1.招揽能够从事系统设计和操作的人才;2.集思广议,探索可以在小型量子计算机运算的应用系统和可解决的问题,这样可以形成一个商业循环,吸引民间投资,加速资金聚集,加速研发进程。Google前面买断了加州大学的一个研究组,跟NASA合作,并且积极探索非纠错的量子计算机在人工智能和搜索算法上的应用,也是跟市场接轨,开拓边应用边研发边聚集人才和投资的举措。这些踏实的举措都比单纯的发文章,做个新闻发布会,或者跟尚无明确的应用开发方向的阿里巴巴合作(仅从外部报道看)来的更加实际有效。绝大多数公众尚且对量子科技玄乎其玄,决策层自然就很容易被一些学者忽悠,粗放式的铺开摊子发展。与其让政策听任于书面的报告,追求与单一的,学界尚无明确技术路线的实现通用量子计算机的长远目标,不如引导让一部分市场的力量选择那些可以实用化的量子技术先行投入应用的小目标,“不管是黑猫白猫,抓住老鼠就是好猫”,并加速这些关键技术的资金/人才/低廉化/系统化的发展进程,形成广泛的社会,部件产品和工程基础,再适时地聚集人才在最接近实现的突破口上集中优势兵力一一加以突破。否则将难免出现学者口里的永远是“10-25年就能实现”的现象;也难免出现实验室里做的很好,结果基础元器件没法用,社会上也没人知道怎么用量子计算机,拱手将研究成果让与其他有开发/制造和应用市场的其他国家领先量子计算机的商业化进程;也难免会出现,一旦量子计算机实现,大量的人失业,造成巨大的社会阻力的现象。我认为,这些前期的分担风险,提前转移劳动力,培养人才,推广应用新技术和优化资源配置的工作都应该在国家层面上和社会思想舆论上积极推进,摸着石头过河。
回复 支持 1 反对 0

使用道具 举报

3431 发表于 2017-5-8 10:22 来自航空航天港手机版! | 显示全部楼层
i2000s 发表于 2017-5-8 03:46
Google今年计划完成49量子比特的量子计算机研发。目前经典超级计算机能够模拟的最大规模量子计算机是49 ...

这话要是能发到内参上就好了
jameswu 发表于 2017-5-12 22:36 | 显示全部楼层
中国破解量子密码获进展 若成功可破译数字加密


原标题:中国研究破解量子密码获突破 速度比闪电快一倍

中国用金刚石进行的一项实验使量子密码的破译离现实更近了一步,从而可能在有朝一日破译为银行、政府和军队提供安全保护的数字加密技术。

据香港《南华早报》网站5月7日报道,安徽合肥的量子物理学家们在他们的实验中,利用一种植入金刚石内部的新型量子计算装置,把数字35分解成因数5和7。这种被称为因数分解的过程是破解如今密码术中最流行的数字算法的关键。

这项研究是由中国科技大学量子物理学家杜江峰领导的,详细的研究结果3月份发表在美国《物理学评论通讯》周刊上。在这项实验中,研究人员向被固定在金刚石的“氮空位中心”内的粒子发射激光和微波束,“氮空位中心”是金刚石内部十分适合亚原子互动的微小空间。这些粒子在2微秒的时间内便得出了解答,其速度比闪电的速度还要快一倍以上。

报道称,速度是密码破译的关键。得益于一种被称为量子纠缠的现象,量子计算机有可能大大减少破译密码所需要的时间。

流行的RSA算法是由罗恩·里里韦斯、阿迪·夏马尔和伦纳德·阿德尔曼在上世纪30年代编写出来的,它利用两个大素数的乘积对信息进行加密。只有知道这两个素数的人才能够对信息进行解码,因为当这两个素数足够大的时候,对它们的乘积进行分解几乎是不可能的。确定RSA加密系统所使用的素数将需要十分巨大的数字计算能力和长达数千年的时间。


但是从理论上说,量子计算机可以在瞬间破译一个RSA密码。一些研究人员称,中国第一台量子计算机可能在今后几年内正常运行,但仍然有需要克服的问题。

合肥的这项研究工作引起了像高军涛等密码专家的注意。高军涛是陕西西安电子科技大学的密码学副教授,他为国防行业编写加密算法。他说:“严格地说,(实验结果)是对密码的破译,尽管仍处在初始阶段。这无疑是一个突破。”

报道称,2012年,杜江峰团队曾凭借对数字143的因数分解创造了一项纪录,但这一结果是利用核磁共振技术在液体介质中取得的,这种介质不容易被照搬到实际应用中。两年后,一个来自日本、英国和美国微软公司的多国研究者团队利用相同的技术对数字56153进行因数分解而创造了新的纪录。但是,中国此次的实验在一种完全建立在固态材料上的环境中对数字进行了因数分解,从而使该系统变得更加稳定。



蟀率的珞子 发表于 2017-6-3 17:23 | 显示全部楼层
http://weibo.com/1821944837/F4q8Z4dVu?type=comment#_rnd1496481123370
史上首次!中国科学家成功实现反事实量子通信

【史上首次!中国科学家成功实现反事实量子通信】近日,中国科技大学研究人员成功实现直接反事实量子通信,在不发送任何物理粒子的情况下将一幅黑白位图从一个地点传送到另一个地点,这在通信史上尚属首次。该研究由中国科技大学上海分校和合肥分校以及清华大学的中国科学家的合作设计和实验,用嵌套式的量子芝诺效应成功实现反事实通信。

  此前经常被报道的量子通信均是基于纠缠原理,而反事实通信是两个接收者之间没有任何粒子传输的量子通信,这种不发送粒子传输量子态的效应也被称作量子芝诺效应。量子芝诺效应发生在不稳定的量子系统被反复的测量。在量子世界,观测或测量系统会导致系统发生改变,在本例中,不稳定的粒子在反复观测时将永远不会衰减。量子芝诺效应创造了一个具有高可能性的事实上冻结的系统。


附注: 感觉这已经不是科学,而是玄学了,玩弄一些概念和名词,量子芝诺效应就不说了,反事实这类名词都出现在科学普及的场所,有点荒唐,
 楼主| i2000s 发表于 2017-6-18 00:19 | 显示全部楼层
爱因斯坦和玻尔的世纪争论,在中国的“墨子号”量子卫星上得到检验。量子试验卫星同时实现了目前最远距离的纠缠光子对分配。
中文报道链接:http://sias.ustc.edu.cn/kdyjyx/x ... 0170616_279250.html
科学杂志评论:http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2 ... ion-record-distance

希望各位继续汇总相关进展报告。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册会员

本版积分规则

QQ|申请友链|旗下论坛|小黑屋|手机版|航空航天港 ( 豫ICP备12024513号 )

GMT+8, 2017-11-23 04:01 , Processed in 0.346455 second(s), 17 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表