back to article Quantum of Suspicion: Despite another $29m, D-Wave doubts remain

Controversial quantum computing venture D-Wave Systems has scooped $29m in lovely fresh cash, courtesy of investors, despite lingering doubts about whether what it offers can be considered "quantum". This is D-Wave’s tenth round of funding from 14 investors, bringing total investments to fairly hefty $174m. D-Wave didn’t …

  1. Dave Nicholson - EMC

    I heard they just need $50M more to complete time travel machine

    Come on, Valley. Let's get this thing done. Again.

    This time we won't destroy the universe.

    I promise.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: I heard they just need $50M more to complete time travel machine

      I successfully time travelled next year, but due to funding issues, I can't repeat it, but for a mere $100 million, I can repeat it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Coat

        Re: I heard they just need $50M more to complete time travel machine

        Thanks for the $100 million, but after successfully testing in 2017, I found out I need $500 million.

        1. PleebSmash
          Coat

          Re: I heard they just need $50M more to complete time travel machine

          We're taking your coat.

    2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: I heard they just need $50M more to complete time travel machine

      This time we won't destroy the universe.

      I should hope not. If your time machine works, presumably you'll destroy the universe in some time other than this one. If you do destroy it in this time, I'm afraid we'll have to ask for our money back.

  2. Christopher E. Stith

    Quantum computing is only faster for certain classes of algorithms, but for those it is much, much faster.

    1. Paul Shirley

      The problem with D-Wave is it doesn't seem to be faster for the algorithm it supports than non quantum solutions. So slow it's debatable it's taking advantage of quantum effects for the actual computation. Even worse no one knows yet if that's because it's just a bad quantum annealer or quantum annealing itself is a dead end.

      One thing is certain, it should never be confused with a general purpose quantum computer.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "only faster for certain classes of algorithms"

      Indeed, one might even say certain mostly rather obscure classes of problem.

      Now, can anyone remind me whether cryptography is one of those problem classes?

      I'm also mildly puzzled as to why there's confusion as to whether it's a quantum box or not.

      If it's able to solve a particular problem in a time which is very very improbable by using conventional methods, surely the quantum/not quantum answer is clear? Where is the uncertainty?

      1. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad
        Joke

        Re: "only faster for certain classes of algorithms"

        "If it's able to solve a particular problem"

        And therein lies the paradox. Successful quantum solution means that you would lose the ability to determine whether it's solved or not.

      2. Paul Shirley

        Re: "only faster for certain classes of algorithms"

        "If it's able to solve a particular problem in a time which is very very improbable"

        D-Waves problem is every time they claim that, someone comes along with a faster algorithm on a classical computer. The speed improvements they claim were never 'improbable enough' to convince anyway.

      3. Mike Bell

        Re: "only faster for certain classes of algorithms"

        Can anyone remind me whether cryptography is one of those problem classes?

        Yes, it is. Google Shor's Algorithm.

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: "only faster for certain classes of algorithms"

          ... Of course D-Wave can't run Shor's algorithm. Search for quantum annealing or adiabatic computing... So cryptography's safe from it ;;

        2. ramsey66

          Re: "only faster for certain classes of algorithms"

          No, the D-wave machine is not designed or engineered to solve cryptography efficiently. Cryptogarphy is better suited for universal (or general purpose) quantum computer. Think of D-wave as a specialized machine.

    3. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      "...but for those it is much, much faster."

      Then it should be absolutely trivial to conclusively and unambiguously prove that it's doing what it claims to be doing. Agree on the form of the problem in advance, open the envelope with the secret input number(s), type them in, go. Bang, correct answer falls out within an amazingly short time. Repeat a few times to help prove it wasn't a fluke, done.

      And yet, the doubts continue... What's with that? They've not done this sort of argument-ending demo yet?

      1. PleebSmash

        Re: "...but for those it is much, much faster."

        They're in secretive venture capital and trade secrets mode.

        The fact that Google, NASA, Lockheed, etc. have given D-Wave millions made them look a lot better, but their refusal to be academic about how it works tarnishes that. I don't count Google's quantum computing side effort against D-Wave since D-Wave admits they aren't making a general-purpose quantum computer.

      2. ramsey66

        Re: "...but for those it is much, much faster."

        Actually, it's not that trivial or easy at all, they have done the test you mentioned. D-wave is faster in some cases and not in others.

        The problem is, finding the right problem for testing or benchmarking is also very very hard. You need a very "hard" or "improbable" problem (as mentioned above) that only a quantum computer can reasonably solve in time. Finding that "quantum" problem is a complicated business.

    4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Quantum computing is only faster for certain classes of algorithms, but for those it is much, much faster.

      For some it has significantly better time complexity. For others it has only modestly better time complexity, particularly for realistic applications.

      QC may be difficult to understand, but complexity class BQP isn't particularly.

      And even without invoking QC, we should remember that better time complexity does not always mean "much, much faster". Quicksort is O(n lg n) while Selection Sort is O(n2); but for small n Selection Sort has to perform fewer comparisons and so should be faster.

  3. TaabuTheCat

    Bitcoin mining

    If it's any good at that, they have all the funding they need.

  4. zebm

    I've been in one of the D-Wave presentations however all my problems involve floating point maths so wasn't really for me

  5. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    "I'm also mildly puzzled as to why there's confusion as to whether it's a quantum box or not."

    Honestly, me too. The basic argument against it using quantum computing seems to be "we haven't figured out how to make it commercially viable yet so it must not be possible." There was serious doubt, but quantum computing tests indicated it was the real deal; that ~2011 Nature paper statistically analyzed some results to some class of programs to discriminate between 4 solving methods and the best fit indicated quantum computing.

    I have had little doubt about this system being quantum. Of course, given the apparently significant algorithm speedups the last few years, it's possible the quantum annealing box will be a dead end until significantly faster read/write speeds for the "qubits" are developed. Personally, I'm somewhat "bullish" on D-Wave's prospects and think they may well be able to get nice speedups.

  6. rvt

    The fact that d-wave might or might not be a quantum computer tells me that the system is in a superposition, making it a quantum computer, right?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Waiting for a Quantum Tablet?

    I bought a box of them at Tesco for a fiver. Got the dishes really clean. I don't understand why they are spending millions on this.

  8. ramsey66

    It's time to get real

    The support and developments on D-wave goes to show that D-wave is on the right track in taking the ENGINEERING approach to quantum computing, otherwise quantum computing will just be a pipe dream.

    Do we fully understand the physics of matter or electricity? No, yet use them everyday and built technology around them.

  9. Christian Berger

    Actually considering what _could_ come out of it $174m is peanuts

    Seriously, Instagram was sold for over 5 times of this. Considering that there are _lots_ of institutions willing to spend many billions on such a device, $174m is not really a statement of anything. It's like buying a lottery ticket.

    BTW if you really want to learn about the state of the art in that field, here are some talks on it:

    http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6261_-_en_-_saal_2_-_201412291245_-_let_s_build_a_quantum_computer_-_andreas_dewes.html#video

    http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6157_-_en_-_saal_6_-_201412301245_-_diamonds_are_a_quantum_computer_s_best_friend_-_nicolas_wohrl.html#video

  10. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    Gah

    Quantum computing is theoretically faster than ordinary computers.

    Sure, in the same way that a bicycle is theoretically faster than an ordinary speedboat, or a horse is theoretically faster than a 747. As a general statement, that's complete rubbish.

    Quantum systems are supposedly faster at solving problems because they look at solutions simultaneously – quantum annealing

    That is not what "quantum annealing" means. I expect you meant "superposition" here, though I hate to encourage this sort of writing - tossing technical terms around in the hope they'll randomly come to mean something.

  11. johnksellers

    I cringe every time I hear D-wave talk about their so called 512 quantum bit computer.

    It doesn't matter how many quantum bits you put on a board. What matters is how many quantum bits there are in a single entanglement. I'm not sure what the world record is now, but it is something like 14 quantum bits.

    Granting hypothetically that Q waves entanglements are about 14 quantum bits, then the calculating capacity of their machine is something like 1 part in 2 raised to the (512 -14) power compared to a true 512 quantum bit machine. In other words a true 512 quantum bit computer would be about 8 followed by 149 zeros times as fast as the D-wave machine.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like