Although the data basis is extremely small I think the results from this poll may still be instructive because I only advertised it within the LinkedIn Quantum Information Science Group. I feel reasonably confident that the two dozen individuals of the roughly 1000 members of this group who bothered to vote are pretty well-informed on the subject matter. The results indicate that the race is still wide open when asked what technology will first allow for more than a 100 quantum gates:
Another little fun fact (although not statistically significant) is to compare the average age of the voter demographics: The classic way of quantum realization (trapped ions) also has the highest average voter age at 37.5 years, while the youngest average age is recorded for the photonic approach at 29 years.
Unfortunately LinkedIn polls only allow for five choices. So I had to pick what I think are the front-runners. Would love to learn what QC realizations the three votes for “something else” are referring to.
Good Jobs, I wondered about superconducting method because its more expensive than the others. But I think only finding the available technology in addition to decreasing the coherency on the system is very important to going a head in QC.
Secure your Systems
Personally my money is on the superconducting approach and not just due to D-Wave’s success. Part of this is totally subjective – ever since I learned about Josephson junction (many, many years ago) they’ve been my favorite quantum system.
The other more objective consideration has to do with the fact that a new class of high temp superconductors has been recently identified. These iron based materials are easier to work with than the copper oxide ones and only require liquid nitrogen for cooling.
I expect most future superconducting devices to move to these materials eventually. Since nitrogen cooling is quite a bit easier than having to use liquid helium I expect this to reduce prices across the board.
Good Jobs, I wondered about superconducting method because its more expensive than the others. But I think only finding the available technology in addition to decreasing the coherency on the system is very important to going a head in QC.
Secure your Systems
Personally my money is on the superconducting approach and not just due to D-Wave’s success. Part of this is totally subjective – ever since I learned about Josephson junction (many, many years ago) they’ve been my favorite quantum system.
The other more objective consideration has to do with the fact that a new class of high temp superconductors has been recently identified. These iron based materials are easier to work with than the copper oxide ones and only require liquid nitrogen for cooling.
I expect most future superconducting devices to move to these materials eventually. Since nitrogen cooling is quite a bit easier than having to use liquid helium I expect this to reduce prices across the board.
It’s a bit surprising to see ion traps in third. I would have voted superconducting qubits.
It’s a bit surprising to see ion traps in third. I would have voted superconducting qubits.