Mediaboss Marketing

Google's Sycamore quantum processor.

The usefulness of most quantum computers is still significantly limited by the low number of qubits that hardware can support. But simple fiber optic cables just like the ones used for broadband connections could be the answer.

A team of researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that, with just a few tweaks,optical fiber can be used to communicate with the qubits sitting inside superconducting quantum computers, with the same level of accuracy as existing methods.

Unlike the metal wires currently used, it is easy to multiply the number of fiber optic cables in a single device, which means it is possible to communicate with more qubits. According to NIST, the findings pave the way to packing a million qubits into a quantum computer. Most devices currently support less than a hundred.

SEE: Hiring Kit: Computer Hardware Engineer (TechRepublic Premium)

Superconducting quantum computers, such as the ones that IBM and Google are building, require qubits to sit on a quantum processor that is cooled to a temperature of 15 milikelvin colder than outer space to protect the particles' extremely fragile quantum state.

But whether to control the qubits or measure them, researchers first need to communicate with the processor. This means a connection line must be established between room-temperature electronics and the cryogenic environment of the quantum circuit.

Typically, scientists use microwave pulses to communicate with qubits. With different frequencies and durations, the pulses can influence the state of the qubit; or researchers can look at the amplitude of the reflected microwave signal to "read" qubit-based information.

Microwave pulses are normally sent down to the ultra-cold qubits through coaxial metal cables. This comes with a practical problem: sets of metal cables can be used to connect with to up to 1,000 qubits, after which it becomes physically unworkable to build more wiring in a single system.

Yet companies have ambitious goals when it comes to scaling up quantum computers. IBM, for example, is expected to surpass the 1,000 qubit mark by 2023 with a processor called IBM Quantum Condor, and iseyeing a long-term goal of a million-qubit quantum system.

John Teufel, a researcher at NIST who worked on the institute's latest research, explains that coaxial metal cables won't cut it for much longer. "The focus of most real-life quantum computing efforts has been to push forward using conventional wiring methods," Teufel tells ZDNet.

"While this has not yet been the bottleneck for state-of-the-art systems, it will become important in the very near future...All the companies that are pursuing quantum-computing efforts are well aware that new breakthroughs will be required to reach their ultimate goal."

The researchers opted to replace metal cables with familiar optical fiber technology.

To address this issue, Teufel and his team at NIST opted to replace metal cables with familiar optical fiber technology, which, based on a glass or plastic core, was anticipated to carry a high volume of signals to the qubits without conducting heat.

Using conventional technology, the researchers converted microwave pulses into light signals that can be transported by the optical cables. Once the light particles reach the quantum processor, they are converted back into microwaves by cryogenic photodetectors, and then delivered to the qubit.

Optical fiber was used to both control and measure qubits, with promising results: the new set-up resulted in accurate rendering of the qubit's state 98% of the time, which is the same accuracy as obtained using regular coaxial lines.

Teufel and his team now envision a quantum processor in which light in optical fibers transmits a signal to and from the qubit, with each qubit talking to a wire. "Unlike conventional metal coaxial cables, the fiber itself is not the bottleneck for how many qubits you could talk to," says Teufel. "You could simply give each qubit a dedicated fiber through which to send signals, even for a million-qubit system. A million fibers seems feasible, while a million coaxial lines does not."

Another advantage of optical cable, notes Teufel, is the information carrying capacity of a single fiber, which is much greater than that of a metal cable. Many more signals up to several thousand can be sent through one optical wire, and the scientist envisions separating and re-routing those signals to different qubits in the processor. This would effectively enable a single fiber optic cable to talk to several qubits at once.

The experiment is yet to be carried out. In the meantime, Teufel is confident that all eyes will be on NIST's latest findings. "Novel wiring methods, like the one we have shown here, will eventually be required to maintain the incredible growth trajectory of quantum computing efforts," says Teufel.

"We do not suggest that our new method is the only long-term solution, but we are excited to see that this new idea looks incredibly promising. I expect that companies will be looking closely at this work to see if these new methods can be incorporated into their future strategies."

Original post:
Quantum computing: How basic broadband fiber could pave the way to the next breakthrough - ZDNet

At the 2021 Quantum Symposium of the Dutch Payments Association, two CWI speakers will give a lecture on the latest developments: Harry Burhman (CWI, UvA, QuSoft) and Lo Ducas (CWI). The conference specifically focuses on quantum computing and security topics with contributions from academic researchers, representatives from the banking industry and authorities in their work area. The event gives a brief update on developments related to quantum computing, explores opportunities, prepares for the advent of the quantum computer and aims to strengthen the dialogue between the academic and industry community.

Abstracts of the CWI contributions:* Quantum algoritmes Prof. Harry Buhrman (CWI, UvA and QuSoft) Quantum computers promise to have a great impact on how we do information processing tasks. The extra power comes the quantum mechanical effects of superposition, interference, and entanglement. Quantum computers require a fundamentally different hardware. The basic building block is a the qubit and operations on these qubits are fundamentally different from the operations that one performs on classical bits. Hence the software that runs on quantum computers is also fundamentally different from the way we are used to program computers. A major driving (research) question is the following: For which computational problems does a quantum computer have an advantage and how big is that advantage? This question is deeply intertwined with fundamental questions in computer science and only a partial answer has been found so far.Recent years has seen great progress in the fabrication of reasonably stable qubits: 50-100 qubits are available now, with a projected growth to a 1000 qubits within the next 5 years. These qubits however are physical qubits that deteriorate and decohere over time. It is known that error correction in combination with fault tolerant computation offer a solution to this decoherence problem. However, this comes at a the price of using a multitude of physical qubits to implement a single stable or logical qubit. This overhead is at the moment and in the near future prohibitively large. We therefore have to develop applications for quantum computers that have a relatively large amount of qubits that decohere over time. I will describe what the impact of the above considerations is on the design of quantum algorithms.

* Quantum resistant cryptography: Standardization and Recommendation - Dr. Lo Ducas (Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica)'In this talk, I first introduce quantum-resistant cryptography, (a.k.a. post-quantum cryptography), explain why it is needed very soon, and explain its difference with quantum cryptography. I then overview the ongoing standardization process of NIST (US National Institute for Standards and Technology), and summarize the pros and cons of the expected portfolio of standards. I conclude with a few recommendations for a safe and orderly transition to security against the cautioned advent of quantum-capable adversaries.'

For more information please visit the website.

Here is the original post:
Lectures by Harry Buhrman and Lo Ducas at Quantum Symposium of Dutch Payments Association - Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI)

To Democrats and their media megaphones, Jim Crow has risen from historys grave and stalks our land again. President Biden invoked the inflammatory racial imagery twice in his Thursday press conference, saying it described the Senate filibuster as well as GOP-led changes in state election laws.

He claimed the election changes make Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle, which makes no sense except to suggest hes got birds on his brain. Biden did it again Friday, after Georgias election changes were signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp, saying the changes represent Jim Crow in the 21st century.

By then it was clear Jim Crow was the partys official talking point. Stacey Abrams and Atlanta protesters both labeled the Georgia law Jim Crow 2.0. One activist called it Jim Crow with makeup and cologne. Another called it Jim Crow in a suit and tie.

The list goes on, but you get the point. The left is eager to racialize any dispute and, for shock effect, dredges up dark pages from out history that bear zero resemblance to the current situation.

In their playbook, any election-law change they dont support is racist and proves America has not made an iota of progress in 150 years.

Like their endless comparisons of Donald Trump to Hitler, the attacks are a form of extremism designed to evoke horror and spark anger. They lack only facts.

Yet even sympathetic voters may get tired of hearing about the second coming of Jim Crow because efforts to tighten sloppy election laws are underway in a reported 43 states. Are all of them run by racist governors and lawmakers who represent racist citizens?

In fact, most of the efforts involve fixing lapses in ballot security that became obvious during the 2020 election after states rushed to relax safeguards during the pandemic.

Most of those changes were pushed by outside activists and approved by Democratic governors and state courts. Although claims by Trump and others of widespread fraud failed in the courts, the new efforts are led by GOP lawmakers who were asleep or sidelined during last years revisions.

Despite the lefts outrageous comparisons to Jim Crow, the name given to post-Civil War laws in Southern states that used poll taxes and literacy tests to block black voters, the new rules are hardly onerous. Georgia, for example, actually expands early voting in some ways, requires it on two Saturdays and makes it optional for counties on Sundays.

No-excuse absentee voting remains available, though applicants must show a state identification card, as in-person voters do. For last years election, absentee ballot-checking relied on signature matches, which are less reliable.

The law, Gov. Kemp said, makes it easier to vote and harder to cheat.

The facts seem to bear him out. And does anyone honestly believe it is racist to ask black absentee voters, along with all others, for identification? If it is, airlines, federal office buildings, banks and motor-vehicle laws are Jim Crows descendants.

Yet the most troubling question is what the hell happened to Joe Biden? Although he campaigned on the promise of civility and unity, he now repeatedly uses false, incendiary language designed to divide.

Biden, for instance, called the Georgia law un-American and said it would deny people the right to vote. He claimed, It adds rigid restrictions on casting absentee ballots that will effectively deny the right to vote to countless voters.

But as others have pointed out, voting laws in Delaware are stricter than the new law in Georgia, yet Biden never said peep about his home state.

Because there is no truth to the presidents odious claims about the Georgia law, we are left with two options. Either Biden has totally taken leave of his senses, or he has an ulterior motive.

While we cant rule out the first choice, I believe the correct answer here is that his attacks on the Georgia law are a pretext for abolishing the Senate filibuster. Recall that it, too, shares, in his words, a Jim Crow lineage.

As a Wall Street Journal editorial notes, breaking the filibuster would allow the Senate to pass with just 51 votes a House bill that would nationalize all election laws and remove most safeguards. The logic for taking that dramatic step is boosted if the left can persuade the public that changes in Georgia and elsewhere are racist and aim to suppress votes rather than protect the integrity of results.

In other words, Biden and his party are digging up Jim Crow for purely partisan purposes. Politics doesnt get much dirtier or destructive.

The episode illustrates Bidens late-in-life habit of reflexively resorting to charges of racism to score points. Recall that campaigning in 2012, he told a black audience in Virginia that if Mitt Romney were elected president, he would put you all back in chains.

Early last year, locked in a tight race with Bernie Sanders for the partys nomination, he made pitches for black votes by declaring that America itself is guilty of systemic racism. Following George Floyds death while in police custody in Minneapolis, Biden began using the phrase frequently, including against law enforcement.

Before he was vice president, during his nearly four decades in the Senate, Biden praised Sen. Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK, and cited his friendships with segregationist Dixiecrats. He was a regular participant in uses of the filibuster to slow down legislation and in a 2005 speech, embraced it as essential to the Senates conduct and character.

Barack Obama, while a senator, also used it in the effort to block the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Samuel Alito, and Dems repeatedly used the filibuster last year yet suddenly its a relic of Jim Crow?

By that standard, so is Joe Bidens entire career.

Finally, recall that polls showed most blacks and most whites believed race relations had grown worse during the Obama-Biden years. Some people never learn or dont give a damn.

Reader Alan Jones offers advice to timid journalists, writing: While in the service, I learned many life lessons, one in particular involved a sergeant. When I said I had some questions he might find stupid, he glared at me and said, There is only ONE stupid question, and its the one you dont ask!

With Andrew Yang leading the citys Democratic primary race for mayor, his closest rival, Eric Adams, went nuclear with personal attacks against him.

Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, said, Yang never held a job in his entire life, and accused him of trying to disregard the people who make this city work.

Its a risky move because ranked-choice voting will pick the winner if nobody gets to 50percent, leading most candidates to hope they will be the second choice for their rivals voters. Adams personal attacks, as opposed to policy disagreements, could lead Yang supporters to leave Adams off their ballots.

More here:
The scare-Crow tactics of Democrats: Goodwin

If the Democrats dont pass H.R. 1 and the new VRA, there is a very good chance that America will wind up under an extended period of minority rule in which the party that represents 4546 percent of the country can have a majority of power in Washington, Drutman told me. Which is not only fundamentally unfair, but it contravenes any set of democratic values and creates a sense of fundamental illegitimacy [that] is deeply destabilizing for a democracy.

Merkley, the principal sponsor of the Senate companion bill, is no less emphatic. Especially with Trumps efforts to subvert the election, the American vision of representative government has slid over the cliff, and [its as if] we caught a root, and we are just holding on by our fingertips, he told me. We must find a way to pass this bill. It is our responsibility in our majority to defend citizens rights to participate in our democracy. There is no other acceptable outcome.

Still, passing the bill, and perhaps the new VRA, will almost certainly require every Senate Democrat agreeing to end the filibuster in some fashionand at least two of them, West Virginias Joe Manchin and Arizonas Kyrsten Sinema, have been adamantly opposed to that action. Merkleys strategy for convincing Democrats to reconsiderat least for the democracy-reform legislationis to encourage an extended debate on the bill, both within the committee and on the Senate floor, and to allow any senator to offer amendments. If Republicans still block final passage with a filibuster after that process, Democrats could either vote to carve out election-reform legislation from the filibuster, or require Republicans blocking the bill to actually filibuster in person, he told me. Democrats could change the rules to tell Republicans you better be here day and night, because we are going to go for weeks and if you are not here, we are going to a final vote on the bill.

Read: This is the future that liberals want

Whatever mechanism Democrats employ, its clear the voter-mobilization groups that worked to produce their unified control are prepared to erupt if the party allows procedural constraints to block passage of H.R. 1 and the VRA. The New Georgia Projects Ufot told me that when Biden and Harris campaigned in Georgia just before the twin runoff elections, they promised big change if the states voters gave them the Senate majority. They didnt add an asterisk that change would be possible only if McConnell somehow chooses not to filibuster their agenda. The filibuster never made it into any of [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumers campaign ads; the filibuster was not a part of President Bidens stump speeches, or Vice President Harriss when she was down in Savannah, Ufot said. Their campaign rhetoric was on full blast, on 10, about why we needed to send them to Washington, D.C., to work on a progressive agenda.

Saying we cant make progress on that agenda, because of existing rules that they have the ability to change will ring like a hollow argument, and it wont bode well for this coalition, Ufot added.

View post:
Democrats' Biggest Decision: Nuking the Filibuster - The ...

Many liberal economists say there are good reasons to raise taxes, starting with using those funds to invest in workers and help build economic opportunity. Spending on physical infrastructure, like roads and water pipes, or on programs like education and child care that are meant to help people earn more money could help curb persistent inequalities in income and wealth. The economists also say that tax increases that are properly set up would provide incentives for multinational companies to keep jobs in the United States and not shift profits to lower-tax foreign countries.

The purpose of the tax system is to both raise enough revenue for what the government wants to do, and to make sure that as were doing that we are encouraging activities that are in the national interest and discouraging ones that are not, said Heather Boushey, a member of the White Houses Council of Economic Advisers.

Key Democrats are trying to bring the party to consensus. The top tax writer in the Senate, Ron Wyden of Oregon, is drafting a series of bills to raise taxes, many of them overlapping with Mr. Bidens campaign proposals.

Ill be ready to raise what the Democratic caucus decides is required to move forward, Mr. Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in an interview.

Mr. Wydens plans include big changes to the portions of Mr. Trumps tax cuts that overhauled how the United States taxes multinational companies, including the creation of a minimum tax of sorts on income earned abroad. Mr. Wyden and many Democratic economists, including some inside the Biden administration, say that the tax was devised in a way that it ultimately incentivized companies to continue moving profits and activities offshore to avoid American taxes. Republican economists and some tax experts disagree and say the law has allowed U.S. companies to better compete globally.

A report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation this month showed that multinational companies paid an average U.S. tax rate of less than 8 percent on their income in 2018, down from 16 percent in 2017. The report also found that those companies did not slow their practice of booking profits in low-tax havens like Bermuda.

Mr. Biden, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Sanders have all drafted plans to raise revenues by amending the 2017 law to force multinational companies to pay more to the United States. One of the most lucrative ways to do that, according to tax scorekeepers, would be to increase the rate of the global minimum tax, forcing those companies to pay higher U.S. tax rates no matter where they locate jobs or profits.

Original post:
Biden Poised to Raise Taxes on Business and the Rich - The New York Times