See my related post, posted on June 2, 2014;
As always, if we can see it, it’s already obsolete. We are only being shown this contraption so that “Full Disclosure” won’t come as such a shock. Much as I find this scientific “endeavor” fascinating, not only because of the tech but for all of it’s other implications, I’m left with a deep sense of foreboding. Just like Oppenheimer’s splitting of the Atom, this is yet another “Genie” being let out of the bottle. How responsible have we been with letting them out before? Right now, the Pacific Ocean is silently dying and soon to be absolutely dead due to Fukishima, which is dumping radioactive water into it by the tonnes on a daily basis no end in sight. Our oceans are soon to be dead people! Is anyone saying anything about it? No.
Now with this revolutionary change in computational power, those interested in further dominating mankind will have all the power they need. I have been convinced that the Anti-Christ would not arrive until the “singularity” became a reality and here we are. Do you know who has the most well developed and tested D-Wave computer right now? That’s right, the NSA! 🙂 Do you know what they are using it for? EVERYTHING EVIL. It wouldn’t be a problem if all of this powerful tech were in the hands of people who wanted only the best for humanity, but remember who gave us super tech in the first place. That would be the Fallen Angels, kiddies. We have been dealing with that tyranny ever since. They are also known as “The Break Away Society”. Thanks to the Angles and the evil humans that consorted with them, we got Human/Angel hybrids called “Nephalim”, the knowledge of war, skills of deception and seduction. That original technological imbalance has resulted in the destruction of humanity and our world that we see today. The ultimate goal is the extinction of the human genetically, transformation into something else. That something is evil. This computer is but an ancient predecessor of the real one currently altering our genome today. What few will tell you (because you probably can’t handle it) is that conventional tech has been combined with spiritual tech or, the super natural. That was the real gift that the Fallen Angles gave us.
And lest you understandably think me to be a Luddite, I was usually the “go to” guy in most of my computer classes. I like tech, computers etc. but know that man will only end up destroying himself with it. I know that it’s already over folks, but it is hard to wrap my head around that dour fact. We are done, The End Times are here, all it is now is a race to the bottom. The Days Of Noah are upon us again. Super tech, genetic perversion, trans-humanism, dimensional incursion, New Age Spirituality and finally, The Devil with his Angles cast down to Earth for one final Hellish period. How will we ever escape? We won’t, we cannot. It’s a “Post-Tribulation Rapture” people and despite what the “Mega-Church” apostate preachers want you to believe, we are going through it all. If still alive, we will see everything fulfilled while still here on Terra not so firma any longer.
“D-Wave’s quantum computers use quantum annealing (a type of adiabatic quantum computation) to solve optimization problems — and really, only optimization problems. A true quantum computer, however, should use quantum entanglement.” – Sebastian Anthony
TRANSHUMAN: Quantum Computing to Grant Immortality by 2035
Published on Feb 14, 2014
In today’s video, Christopher Greene of AMTV explains the possibility of immortality through technology.
TIME Magazine: The Quantum Quest for a Revolutionary Computer
Google Says “Nanobots In Our Bloodstream, Brains On The Cloud, And Immortality By The Year 2035″
Russian Mogul to ‘Forbes’ Billionaires: Limitless Lifespans Can Be Yours
Russian tycoon seeks human immortality, artificial brains by 2045
Become a Glass Explorer
Nanobots Seek and Destroy Cancer Cells
Google’s New Sugar-Sensing Contact Lens
(Video) Mark Of The Beast RFID Chip Implantation 2013
Published on Jan 28, 2014
Following Google’s purchase of leading Artificial Intelligence firm, DeepMind, the Internet collectively wondered what this has to do with all those robotics companies Google has also been snapping up. So are we far from having superintelligent operating system girlfriends (ie the movie Her)? If some of Google’s recent computing experiments are any indication, the answer is no. But on the plus side, search could get a lot cooler.
Deepmind patents https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&a…
Deepmind to Work Directly with Google’s Search Team http://recode.net/2014/01/27/more-on-…
“Her” trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6p6M…
Google and NASA’s Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDH…
Google’s Quantum Computer Flunks Landmark Speed Tests http://www.newscientist.com/article/d…
“Meet Google’s New Robot Army”
CTA: “Where the Future of AI is Headed
A quantum (computing) gun revealed by quantum smoke
D-Wave’s quantum computer shows direct evidence of quantum goodness.
I have to admit it: D-Wave is starting to produce some impressive results. For the uninitiated, D-Wave came to ourattention by loudly and repeatedly claiming that it had built a quantum computer. Many of us were skeptical. Over time, though, D-Wave has answered its critics in the best way possible: by providing evidence. Now, researchers who actually got inside the black box are reporting some key results that come very close to removing any lingering doubts.
The quantum difference
When we perform computations in an ordinary computer, we have to manipulate each bit individually. Sure, the computer might make this faster through some sort of parallelization, but there’s still a set of transistors flipping individual bits for each operation. A quantum computer is different. First, the information is stored in a quantum state (called a qubit), which means that it holds multiple values simultaneously (called superposition states). The value of a qubit is only determined when the result of a computation is read out. An eight-qubit quantum register can therefore hold values from 0-255 simultaneously, but the probability of obtaining a particular value is modified by the computational operations that are performed prior to reading the register out.
That is not the real power of quantum computation, however. The second bit of magic that a quantum system has is called coherence. When a quantum state is in a superposition state, the probability of obtaining a one or a zero changes with time naturally, like a pendulum swinging back and forth. At a particular time, the chance of measuring a one is unity, while some time later, the chance of measuring a zero is unity. In between, the probability of obtaining a one smoothly varies from unity to zero. When two qubits are coherent, this changing probability happens in concert for the two qubits.
This means that even when you perform an operation on one qubit, it jumps to a new value, but the relationship between the two qubits remains predictable in time. Yet the results from measuring their value is independent. That is, if we measure the two qubits, the individual results are not determined by each other. Only by making many measurements can we see that the two have a mutual relationship in how they change in time.
The final superpower of quantum computation is called entanglement. When two qubits are entangled, their values become correlated. Two entangled qubits are not separate anymore. They are a single entity. As the superposition state of one changes, the other must change in a complementary way. It has no choice. This also means that their measurement results in interconnected values—measuring one tells us the value of the other. It should be noted that there is no communication involved in this process, so “interconnected” should not be taken to mean some sort of driving force or information transfer between the two qubits.
By these three powers combined, a quantum computer is able to perform a sort of parallelism that is unlike anything a classical computer can manage. In a sense, a quantum computer explores all possible solutions—including incorrect solutions—at once. When it obtains the outcome, it is probabilistic: the correct solution is the most probable, but all other answers have some nonzero probability as well. To ensure that it picks the right solution, a quantum computer must be run several times to ensure that the most probable outcome dominates the other answers.
The critical point is that without all of these properties—superposition, coherence, and entanglement—there is no proof that a quantum computer offers any speedup.
Fitting D-Wave in d quantum box
And that was the challenge with D-Wave’s computer. It’s a rather complex beast, consisting of many qubits coupled together in a complicated circuit. Not only was it not easy to determine whether qubits were indeed qubits, but it took some time to figure out a way to define a measure for entanglement in a multiple-qubit system. To get around this, researchers have resorted to scaling arguments. Let the computer solve some problems under different conditions and observe how fast it comes to a solution. Those results were then compared to computer models of quantum and classical systems. The upshot was that the scaling looked more quantum than classical—good news for D-Wave. But these results require that we trust that the computational model includes all relevant physics.
A more direct proof has now been obtained. In the latest paper, the researchers used one of the qubits as a probe to measure the part of the quantum state of the surrounding qubits. They did this for a pair of qubits and for a ring of eight. They showed that the qubits exhibited behavior that can only be obtained if the qubits are entangled and coherent—a clear sign of quantum behavior.
In more detail, the probe qubit is able to measure the occupation of the energetic states of the test qubits. In classical behavior, this occupation will be governed solely by the temperature, and when the gap between the first excited state and the ground state closes (that is, no energy is required to go from one to the other), both levels should be occupied. If the qubits are entangled, this gap never closes—the two approach, come to some minimum gap, and then open up again. This is because the entangled qubits have to maintain complementary values, so it’s impossible for them to assume values that close the gap between the excited state and the ground state. In physics-speak, this is called an avoided crossing.
The researchers also used a couple of different measures of entanglement to quantify just how entangled the qubits were. In the case of two qubits, they obtain about half of a maximally entangled state, while for the eight-qubit system it was less than half. There are qubit systems that can be maximally entangled, but given the scale of the D-Wave system, this is an impressive result.
Don’t go racing for your credit card just yet, though. Although the qubits are entangled, they are not as entangled as you might like. I’m not sure what this means for proofs of computational speedup other than that the proofs take maximally entangled and coherent qubits as a given. Nevertheless, this is huge because it’s now just a question of time—time to make the system cleaner, time to make the system bigger.
On that note, I should point out that making the system bigger is probably one of the biggest problems that D-Wave now faces. In order to solve realistic problems, it has to create much bigger systems. Even though it has 512-qubit systems, the way the qubits are used means that they have effectively less than 100 qubits. The second problem is that D-Wave’s qubit layout limits the computational problems they can solve—every problem must be rewritten to suit the qubit layout. Effectively, this reduces the number of qubits even further because some problems map one-to-one (one D-Wave qubit represents one qubit of the original problem), but others map much less efficiently (say 10 qubits to simulate one qubit), while still others can’t be mapped at all. Effectively, this means that each system has to be uniquely configured to solve a specific problem efficiently, and not all problems can be solved.
The problem of scaling is something that I expect to see solved reasonably quickly (within a few years, D-Wave has gone from 32 qubits to 512 qubits). A D-Wave system may yet be solving logistical problems on a commercial basis.
Physical Review X, 2014, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.4.021041
A computer scientist at Amherst College has performed the first ever head-to-head speed test between a conventional and quantum computer — and, you’ll be glad to hear that the quantum computer won. But only just — and against a conventional computer that’s 6,000 times cheaper.
The quantum computer being tested was the D-Wave Two, which packs 439 quantum bits (qubits). Ever since D-Wave launched the first commercial quantum computer in 2011 — the128-qubit, $10 million D-Wave One — the company has faced a lot of criticism from quantum physicists and computer scientists, who claim that D-Wave’s qubits aren’t actually quantum. Over the last year or so, thanks to peer-reviewed studies that have explored the D-Wave One’s inner workings, this criticism has faded.
This new study, from Catherine McGeoch of Amherst College, goes some way to confirming the D-Wave Two’s quantumness — but at the same time, her research shows that the D-Wave Two is nothing like the real, general-purpose quantum computers that should revolutionize the world we live in. D-Wave’s quantum computers use quantum annealing (a type of adiabatic quantum computation) to solve optimization problems — and really, onlyoptimization problems. A true quantum computer, however, should use quantum entanglement.
As you probably know, quantum entanglement is incredibly finicky. The current state of the art doesn’t allow us to harness more than one or two entangled qubits for a few microseconds. Quantum annealing, however, can be performed with much noisier, lower-quality qubits — which is why D-Wave has managed to produce a 439-qubit system that works outside the lab, in a normal office setting. D-Wave’s qubit chips still need to be cooled to near-absolute-zero (0.02K, -273.13C), though, and the qubits (loops of niobium) are still so fickle (affected by external electromagnetic radiation) that each calculation is carried out 1,000 times to ensure its accuracy. Despite all this, there’s still no guarantee that the final solution will be optimal (but it usually is).
To perform the quantum vs. conventional computer speed test, three NP-hard optimization problems were carried out on a variety of systems: A D-Wave Two system containing a Vesuvius 5 chip (439 qubits), Blackbox (a Vesuvius 5/software hybrid), and three software solvers (CPLEX, METSlib Tabu, Akmaxsat) running on an Intel Xeon E5-2690 CPU (under Ubuntu Linux 12.04). The best example of NP-hard optimization is the traveling salesman problem, where you must devise the shortest route between a given number of destinations. Such optimization is computationally very difficult, but it’s theorized that quantum computers should be able to solve these problems much faster.
The results showed that, where the NP-hard problems could be executed directly on the hardware, the D-Wave system is around 4,000 times faster. When Blackbox had to be used, to break problems down into chunks that Vesuvius can understand, performance tied or bettered the software solvers. The study also briefly tested D-Wave’s newest chip, the Vesuvius 6, and found that it would be around 10,000 times faster than the software solvers.
These results probably pose more questions than they answer, though. We’re still not entirely sure how D-Wave’s chips actually work, and so we have no idea if we’re using them optimally. We also don’t know how the D-Wave chips compare to software solvers that use highly optimized simulated quantum annealing — it’s possible that the software would be just as fast as the hardware. Finally, we must remember that the software was running on a ~$1500 workstation, while the D-Wave Two, which was recently purchased by Lockheed Martin, has a price tag somewhere in the $10+ million range (6666 times more expensive). You could build a petaflop-class supercomputer for $10 million — and not only would it be faster than the D-Wave Two at NP-hard problems, but you could run normal software on it, too!
For more information on the testing methodology, and some (mostly) human readable background on what quantum annealing actually is, check out McGeoch’s research paper [PDF]. McGeoch will present “Experimental Evaluation of an Adiabiatic Quantum System for Combinatorial Optimization” at the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) International Conference on Computing Frontiers next week, in Italy.
||It has been suggested that D-Wave Two be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2014.|
|Type||Privately held company|
|Headquarters||Burnaby, British Columbia,Canada|
|Key people||Vern Brownell, CEO
Geordie Rose, CTO
Eric Ladizinsky, CS
V. Paul Lee, Chair
|Products||D-Wave One, D-Wave Two|
D-Wave Systems, Inc. is a quantum computing company, based in Burnaby,British Columbia, Canada. On May 11, 2011, D-Wave System announced D-Wave One, described as”the world’s first commercially available quantum computer,” operating on a 128-qubit chipset using quantum annealing (a general method for finding the global minimum of a function by a process usingquantum fluctuations) to solve optimization problems. In May 2013 it was announced that a collaboration between NASA, Google and theUniversities Space Research Association (USRA) launched a Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab based on the D-Wave Two 512-qubit quantum computer that would be used for research into machine learning, among other fields of study.
The D-Wave One was built on early prototypes such as D-Wave’s Orion Quantum Computer. The prototype was a 16-qubit quantum annealing processor, demonstrated on February 13, 2007 at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. D-Wave demonstrated what they claimed to be a 28-qubit quantum annealing processor on November 12, 2007. The chip was fabricated at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratorymicrodevices lab in Pasadena, California.
- 1 Technology description
- 2 History
- 3 Orion prototype
- 4 D-Wave One computer system
- 5 D-Wave Two computer system
- 6 Controversy
- 7 Notable alumni and collaborators
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
In June 2010 the D-Wave processor was described as comprising a programmablesuperconducting integrated circuit with up to 128 pair-wise coupled superconducting flux qubits. The 128-qubit processor was superseded by a 512-qubit processor in 2013. The processor is designed to implement a special-purpose quantum annealing as opposed to being operated as a universal gate-model quantum computer.
D-Wave maintains a list of peer-reviewed technical publications by their own scientists and others on their website.
D-Wave was founded by Haig Farris (former chair of board), Geordie Rose (CTO and former CEO), Bob Wiens (former CFO), and Alexandre Zagoskin (former VP Research and Chief Scientist). Farris taught an entrepreneurship course at the University of British Columbia (UBC), where Rose obtained his Ph.D., and Zagoskin was a postdoctoral fellow. The company name refers to their first qubit designs, which used d-wave superconductors.
D-Wave operated as an offshoot from UBC, while maintaining ties with the Department of Physics and Astronomy. It funded academic research in quantum computing, thus building a collaborative network of research scientists. The company collaborated with several universities and institutions, including UBC, IPHT Jena, Université de Sherbrooke, University of Toronto, University of Twente, Chalmers University of Technology, University of Erlangen, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory.These partnerships were listed on D-Wave’s website until 2005. In June 2014 D-Wave announced a new quantum applications ecosystem with computational finance firm 1QB Information Technologies (1QBit) and cancer research group DNA-SEQ to focus on solving real-world problems with quantum hardware.
D-Wave operated from various locations in Vancouver, Canada, and laboratory spaces at UBC before moving to its current location in the neighboring suburb of Burnaby. D-Wave also has offices in Palo Alto, California and Vienna, Virginia.
On February 13, 2007, D-Wave demonstrated the Orion system, running three different applications at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. This marked the first public demonstration of, supposedly, a quantum computer and associated service.
The first application, an example of pattern matching, performed a search for a similar compound to a known drug within a database of molecules. The next application computed a seating arrangement for an event subject to compatibilities and incompatibilities between guests. The last involved solving a Sudoku puzzle.
The processors at the heart of D-Wave’s “Orion quantum computing system” are designed for use as hardware acceleratorprocessors rather than general-purpose computer microprocessors. The system is designed to solve a particular NP-complete problem related to the two dimensional Ising model in a magnetic field. D-Wave terms the device a 16-qubitsuperconducting adiabatic quantum computer processor.
According to the company, a conventional front end running an application that requires the solution of an NP-complete problem, such as pattern matching, passes the problem to the Orion system.
According to Geordie Rose, founder and Chief Technology Officer of D-Wave, NP-complete problems “are probably not exactly solvable, no matter how big, fast or advanced computers get”; the adiabatic quantum computer used by the Orion system is intended to quickly compute an approximate solution.
2009 Google demonstration
D-Wave One computer system
On May 11, 2011, D-Wave Systems announced the D-Wave One, an integrated quantum computer system running on a 128-qubit processor. The processor used in the D-Wave One code-named “Rainier”, performs a single mathematical operation, discrete optimization. Rainier uses quantum annealing to solve optimization problems. The D-Wave One is claimed to be the world’s first commercially available quantum computer system. The price will be approximatelyUS$10,000,000.
A research team led by Matthias Troyer and Daniel Lidar found that, while there is evidence of quantum annealing in D-Wave One, they saw no speed increase compared to classical computers. They implemented an optimized classical algorithm to solve the same particular problem as the D-Wave One.
Lockheed Martin and D-Wave collaboration
On May 25, 2011, Lockheed Martin signed a multi-year contract with D-Wave Systems to realize the benefits based upon a quantum annealing processor applied to some of Lockheed’s most challenging computation problems. The contract included purchase of the D-Wave One Quantum Computer System, maintenance, and associated professional services
Optimization problem-solving in protein structure determination
In August 2012 a team of Harvard University researchers presented results of the largest protein-folding problem solved to date using a quantum computer. The researchers solved instances of a lattice protein folding model, known as the Miyazawa-Jernigan model, on a D-Wave One quantum computer.
D-Wave Two computer system
In May 2013 Catherine McGeoch, a consultant for D-Wave, published the first comparison of the technology against regular top-end desktop computers running an optimization algorithm. Using a configuration with 439 qubits, the system performed 3,600 times as fast as CPLEX, the best algorithm on the conventional machine, solving problems with 100 or more variables in half a second compared with half an hour. She added that the comparison is “not quite fair, because generic computers will always perform less well than a device dedicated to solving a specific problem”. The results are presented at the Computing Frontiers 2013 conference.
In March 2013 several groups of researchers at the Adiabatic Quantum Computing workshop at the Institute of Physics in London produced evidence, though only indirect, of quantum entanglement in the D-Wave chips.
In May 2013 it was announced that a collaboration between NASA, Google and the USRA launched a Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab at the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division at Ames Research Center in California, using a 512-qubit D-Wave Two that would be used for research into machine learning, among other fields of study.
D-Wave was originally criticized by some scientists in the quantum computing field. On May 16, 2013 NASA and Google, together with a consortium of universities, announced a partnership with D-Wave to investigate how D-Wave’s computers could be used in the creation of artificial intelligence. Prior to announcing this partnership, NASA, Google, and Universities Space Research Association put a D-Wave computer through a series of benchmark and acceptance tests, which it passed. Independent researchers found that D-Wave’s computers could solve some problems as much as 3,600 times faster than particular software packages running on conventional digital computers. Other independent researchers found that different software packages running on a single core of a desktop computer can solve those same problems as fast or faster than D-Wave’s computers (at least 12,000 times faster for quadratic assignment problems, and between 1 and 50 times faster for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems).
Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Mosca and I wrote on “The power of adiabatic quantum computing.” That speed up unfortunately does not hold in the setting at hand, and therefore D-Wave’s “quantum computer” even if it turns out to be a true quantum computer, and even if it can be scaled to thousands of qubits, would likely not be more powerful than a cell phone.
At the moment it is impossible to say if D-Wave’s quantum computer is intrinsically equivalent to a classical computer or not. So until more is known about their error rates, caveat emptor is the least one can say.
An article in the May 12, 2011 edition of Nature gives details which critical academics say proves that the company’s chips do have some of the quantum mechanical properties needed for quantum computing. Prior to the 2011 Nature paper, D-Wave was criticized for lacking proof that its computer was in fact a quantum computer. Nevertheless, questions remained due to the lack of conclusive experimental proof of quantum entanglement inside D-Wave devices.
MIT professor Scott Aaronson, who describes himself as “Chief D-Wave Skeptic”, said that D-Wave’s 2007 demonstration did not prove anything about the workings of the Orion computer, and that its marketing claims were deceptive. In May 2011 he said that he was “retiring as Chief D-wave Skeptic”, and reporting his “skeptical but positive” views based on a visit to D-Wave in February 2012. Aaronson said that one of the most important reasons for his new position on D-Wave was the 2011 Nature article. In May 16, 2013 he resumed his skeptic post. He criticizes D-Wave for blowing up results out of proportion on press releases that claim speedups of three orders of magnitude, in light of a paper by scientists from ETH Zurich reporting a 128-qubit D-Wave computer being outperformed by a factor of 15 using regular digital computers and applying classical metaheuristics (particularly simulated annealing) to the problem that D-Wave’s computer was specifically designed to solve.
In March 2014, researchers at University College London and the University of Southern California (USC) published a paper comparing data obtained from a D-Wave Two computer with three possible explanations from classical physics and one quantum model. They found that their quantum model was a better fit to the experimental data than the Shin-Smith-Smolin-Vazirani classical model, and a much better fit than any of the other classical models. The authors conclude that “This suggests that an open system quantum dynamical description of the D-Wave device is well-justified even in the presence of relevant thermal excitations and fast single-qubit decoherence.” 
In May 2014, researchers at D-Wave, Google, USC, Simon Fraser University, and National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University published a paper containing experimental results that demonstrated the presence of entanglement among D-Wave qubits. Qubit tunneling spectroscopy was used to measure the energy eigenspectrum of two and eight-qubit systems, demonstrating their coherence during a critical portion of the quantum annealing procedure.
Notable alumni and collaborators
D-Wave has employed on a permanent or contract basis several key members of the scientific community as well as several notable business consultants. A partial list includes:
- Dmitri V. Averin (Stony Brook)
- Jacob Biamonte (ISI Foundation)
- Alexandre Zagoskin (Loughborough University)
- Vern Brownell 
- M. W. Johnson et al (2011), Quantum annealing with manufactured spins (Nature)
- “T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, “Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model”, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998)”.
- “A. B. Finilla, M. A. Gomez, C. Sebenik and D. J. Doll, “Quantum annealing: A new method for minimizing multidimensional functions”, Chem. Phys. Lett. 219, 343 (1994)”.
- “G. E. Santoro and E. Tosatti, “Optimization using quantum mechanics: quantum annealing through adiabatic evolution”, J. Phys. A 39, R393 (2006)”.
- “A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, “Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation” Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1061 (2008)”.
- Choi, Charles (May 16, 2013). “Google and NASA Launch Quantum Computing AI Lab”. MIT Technology Review.
- “Quantum Computing Demo Announcement”. 2007-01-19. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
- D-Wave Systems: News
- A picture of the demo chip « rose.blog
- M. W. Johnson et al., “A scalable control system for a superconducting adiabatic quantum optimization processor,”Supercond. Sci. Technol. 23, 065004 (2010); preprint available: arXiv:0907.3757
- R. Harris et al., “Compound Josephson-junction coupler for flux qubits with minimal crosstalk,” Phys. Rev. B 80, 052506 (2009); preprint available: arXiv:0904.3784
- R. Harris et al., “Experimental demonstration of a robust and scalable flux qubit,” Phys. Rev. B 81, 134510 (2010); preprint available: arXiv:0909.4321
- Next Big Future: Robust and Scalable Flux Qubit, , September 23, 2009
- Next Big Future: Dwave Systems Adiabatic Quantum Computer , October 23, 2009
- D-Wave Systems: D-Wave Two Quantum Computer Selected for New Quantum Artificial Intelligence Initiative, System to be Installed at NASA’s Ames Research Center, and Operational in Q3, , May 16, 2013
- D-Wave Web site, list of technical publications
- “D-Wave Systems at the Way Back Machine”. 2002-11-23. Archived from the original on 2002-11-23. Retrieved 2007-02-17.
- “D-Wave Systems at the Way Back Machine”. 2005-03-24. Archived from the original on 2005-03-24. Retrieved 2007-02-17.
- “D-Wave Systems Building Quantum Application Ecosystem, Announces Partnerships with DNA-SEQ Alliance and 1QBit”. Retrieved 2014-06-09.
- Kaminsky; William M. Kaminsky and Seth Lloyd (2002-11-23). “Scalable Architecture for Adiabatic Quantum Computing of NP-Hard Problems”. Quantum Computing & Quantum Bits in Mesoscopic Systems (Kluwer Academic) (PDF).arXiv:quant-ph/0211152.
- Meglicki, Zdzislaw (2008). Quantum Computing Without Magic: Devices. MIT Press. pp. 390–391. ISBN 0-262-13506-X.
- “Yeah but how fast is it? Part 3. OR some thoughts about adiabatic QC”. 2006-08-27. Archived from the original on 2006-11-19. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
- “Learning to program the D-Wave One”. Retrieved 11 May 2011.
- “First Ever Commercial Quantum Computer Now Available for $10 Million”. Retrieved 25 May 2011.
- Scott Aaronson (16 May 2013). “D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge”.
- Quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits.Cornell University Library. 16 April 2013.
- “Lockheed Martin Signs Contract with D-Wave Systems”.Retrieved 2011-05-25
- D-Wave quantum computer solves protein folding problem : Nature News Blog
- D-Wave uses quantum method to solve protein folding problem
- D-Wave Defies World of Critics With ‘First Quantum Cloud’ | Wired Enterprise | Wired.com
- The black box that could change the world – The Globe and Mail
- Aron, Jacob (10 May 2013). “Commercial quantum computer leaves PC in the dust”. New Scientist. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
- McGeoch, Catherine; Wang, Cong (May 2013).“Experimental Evaluation of an Adiabatic Quantum System for Combinatorial Optimization”.
- Aron, Jacob (8 March 2013). “Controversial quantum computer aces entanglement tests”. New Scientist. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
- Hardy, Quentin (16 May 2013). “Google Buys a Quantum Computer”. Bits. The New York Times. Retrieved 3 June 2013.
- “D-Wave: comment on comparison with classical computers”. 2013-06-10. Retrieved 2013-06-20.
- “Shtetl-Optimized: D-Wave Easter Spectacular”. 2007-04-07. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
- “Quantum computing: In the ‘death zone’?”. 2007-04-07. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
- Quantum annealing with manufactured spins Nature 473, 194–198, 12 May 2011
- The CIA and Jeff Bezos Bet on Quantum ComputingTechnology Review October 4, 2012 by Tom Simonite
- My visit to D-wave: Beyond the Roast Beef Sandwich 21 February 2012
- “Shtetl-Optimized: The Orion Quantum Computer Anti-Hype FAQ”. 2007-02-09. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
- Quantum-Effect-Demonstrating Beef May 25 2011
- “Shtetl-Optimized: Thanksgiving Special: D-Wave at MIT”. 2007-11-22. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
- “In Defence of D-Wave”.
- Shin, Seung Woo; Graeme Smith, John A. Smolin, Umesh Vazirani (28 January 2014). “How ‘Quantum’ is the D-Wave Machine?”. arXiv:1401.7087 [quant-ph].
- Walter Vinci, Tameem Albash, Anurag Mishra, Paul A. Warburton, Daniel A. Lidar “Distinguishing Classical and Quantum Models for the D-Wave Device” (17 Mar 2014)http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4228
- “Faculty | Dr Jacob Biamonte | Physics | University of Oxford”. qubit.org. Retrieved 2013-09-04.
- “Department staff | Dr Alexandre Zagoskin | Physics | Loughborough University”. Lboro.ac.uk. Retrieved 2013-05-16.
- Official website
- Announcement of the 16-qubit quantum computer demonstration
- Google Tech Talks: Quantum Computing Day 2: Image Recognition with an Adiabatic Quantum Computer
- Theoretical performance of a D-Wave processor: Investigating the Performance of an Adiabatic Quantum Optimization Processor
- Quantum Annealing and Computation: A Brief Documentary Note, A. Ghosh and S. Mukherjee
Sorry about these ads at the bottom of some of my posts, folks. I have no control over what WordPress.com puts there.
I was horrified at the latest ad that you see below, if it were up to me, I wouldn’t have anything like that on my blog.
I intend to complain to WordPress tonight about these offensive ads and try to convince them to remove them from my blog posts. I don’t know if there is a way to do this but I’ll try.
Again, my sincerest apologies to any who are offended by the ads.
About These Ads
The site you just visited is part of WordPress.com. There are two reasons why you might see ads on a WordPress.com site:
- The site is part of the WordAds program and has elected to show ads to earn money from their site.
- The site is one of the sites hosted on WordPress.com that has not purchased the No Ads upgrade, and we are running ads to cover the costs of operating the site for the user. We run these types of ads sparingly in an attempt to interfere as little as possible with the experience of reading a site. There’s more info about our approach to ad serving in this blog post.
In both of the above cases, the ad you saw could be coming from a number of ad partners. The ads change depending on factors like your location and the type of site you are visiting.
If you are a WordPress.com user and you would like to permanently remove all ads from your site, please take a look at our No Ads upgrade.
If you saw an inappropriate ad, please report it to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include the address of the site (e.g., http://example.wordpress.com), the date/time the ad appeared, and a screenshot of the ad.