Talk:Timeline of quantum computing and communication

Subdivisions: Months, theory/experiment, etc.

This page offers a good insight into the development of quantum computing. However, there's quite a bit missing, especially in terms of recent developments - too much has happened in the last 10 years or so, in order to be able to provide a good overview by merely dividing by year. Too many events, often not related to each other, get put into a single long paragraph. From some point onward (1995 for example), I suggest sorting milestones by month of the year.

Another suggestion, as quantum computing is such a multi-disciplinary field, would be to divide developments into their respective disciplines. For example, developments in theory (e.g. error correction), could be separated from experimental ones (e.g. multiple qubit entanglement). I'm not suggesting a separate timeline (that would detract from the idea that quantum computing unifies many fields), just maybe a more intuitive subdivision than the monthly one I suggested above.

In any case, this page has a lot of potential, but as it stands, I don't think it has the scalability, and more importantly the readability it deserves. In case there are no objections, I'll try to reorganize it. Tomatoman 20:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just realized the obvious solution that was escaping me - for every year just have all the developments bullet-pointed in chronological order. Will get this done as soon as I've got a moment. Tomatoman 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There are too many entries in 2005 and 2006. Many of these are just theoretical proposals and their merit is still unclear. I think this page should only include acknowledged milestones. --J S Lundeen 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is a bit too long. I would also suggest sub-dividing it. In fact, I would suggest having 2 separate articles for theoretical and experimental developments. There is no temporal connection between the two. Research in theory progresses at a rate independent of that in practical implementations of QC. Moreover, this classification makes it clear to the reader that some things mentioned have actually been done in a lab, and others are ideas or theorems. --Robin (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I second Robin's suggestion. As it stands, the page is just a chronological list of articles/papers, many of which appear to have little if any link to quantum computing. The theory-experiment split may make it a bit clearer what is and isn't acceptable. I'd go through it myself, but I'm a bit harsh when it comes to separating junk science from real science, e.g. 2008 would be down to maybe 4 items, probably fewer. --Ndickson (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and split it (maybe after waiting for more opinions?). It's easier to prune the list by keeping only the most notable events on the list and then adding more (after citing proof of notability), as opposed to deleting things that don't belong here. I don't know much about the experimental developments, but I'll clean up the theory article once you're done. There are some important theoretical advancements that aren't listed here. --Robin (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any opinions on the proposed split? Any recommendations for names of the two articles? --Robin (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've been sitting on this for a long time, since I can't be considered completely neutral on this topic, but something really needs to be done. As such, I propose the following criteria for removing listed items from the page, and if people can agree on the criteria, I'll try my best to make the necessary overhaul in a neutral way. A goal should be to have few enough items left that they are worth describing in at least a couple of sentences on the page.

• As this is "quantum computing" and not "quantum theory", all items not related to computing should be removed, e.g. observations of quantum effects alone are not relevant.
• As this is "quantum computing" and not "classical computing", all items that are not specific to quantum effects should be removed, e.g. a CNOT gate by itself is just a 2-bit classical gate, even though it's commonly examined in the context of quantum computers.
• I didn't see many items on the often-misidentified "quantum communication", but those should be removed too, unless they are communication in the context of quantum computation.
• All items of speculative physicality should be removed. If there's no evidence that a described device or algorithm can be built/implemented in the next 10 years (from now, i.e. before 2020), it cannot yet be known to be of significance, unless it represents a dramatic change in direction for the field. Claims of being able to predict 10 years in the future are outrageous.
• All items of speculative usability should be removed. Same thing as the previous, except in terms of its ability to be used in/by a quantum computer in the next 10 years.
• All items examining no more than single qubits should be removed, unless it is the first to ever examine a qubit or examining a qubit in a medium not previously believed to behave like a qubit. This is because almost all nanoscopic objects or superconducting devices can be made to behave in a manner characteristic of a qubit given the right setup.
• Since this is a timeline, not a collection of miscellaneous ideas or information about quantum computing, all items that are simply a description of ideas or information should be removed, especially if the ideas or information were known before the posted date.
• All items that claim firsts after other previous claims of firsts that supercede the latter claims should be removed, unless there is legitimate dispute as to which was first, which should be described.
• This should be an article of milestones, so all items that may or may not claim firsts but are clearly not firsts should be removed and, if applicable, replaced by items that do represent related firsts.
• Any articles cited should be the original source, not paraphrased, rebranded, sometimes editorialized re-reports.

I'll add more criteria if I've missed anything. Please let me know what you think about these. Ndickson (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points. Some minor quibbles: If an experiment is cited in the media, it would be nice to have the original paper(s) and media citations. CNOT is a quantum gate. I would think it's a milestone when they implemented that for the first time, but I'm no experimentalist. Also, as I said before, I think we should split this article into one that covers implementation or implementation-related results, and another one which covers theoretical results (like Holevo's theorem, teleportation and superdense coding, Shor's algorithm, etc.). --Robin (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Robin. I agree with your point about citing both original paper(s) and media citations; I just didn't describe what I meant very well. I was referring to things like "Google Demonstrates Quantum Algorithm Promising Superfast Search" citing a decidedly flaky re-report on PopSci.com instead of the original article on the Google Research Blog, which is clearer and more correct while still being directed at a general audience. I also agree that CNOT is a quantum gate, but only in the sense that classical gates are quantum gates that don't require quantum effects. One output of CNOT is the XOR of the two inputs, and the other output is just one of the two inputs, both of which can be implemented easily with transistors and wires. As such, if only CNOTs in one basis are used, it's not relevant. If CNOT and Hadamard gates are used, it's possibly relevant. I agree with the split too, though it may be easier as a first step to split the page into two sections instead of jumping right to two separate articles. Ndickson (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, even the title "Google Demonstrates Quantum Algorithm Promising Superfast Search" is false according to the original article, since they're not promising anything, they don't claim to know whether it's a quantum algorithm that was demonstrated, and they don't claim that search will be "Superfast", haha. Ndickson (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to split the article into two parts and/or prune the article severely. --Robin (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Feynman 1981

"However, instead of viewing this intractability as an obstacle, Feynman regarded it as an opportunity. He pointed out that if it requires that much computation to work out what will happen in a multi-particle interference experiment, then the very act of setting up such an experiment and measuring the outcome is equivalent to performing a complex computation."

Does the information contained in the above quotation not appear in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics article describing his talk? I just read the paper, have it in front of me, and was looking for any mention of Feynman viewing this as an opportunity. What I found is section 4: QUANTUM COMPUTERS -- UNIVERSAL QUANTUM SIMULATORS. There he does not talk about how setting up this experiment is equivalent to performing a complex computation; he restricts his view of a quantum computer to a machine capable of simulating physical laws. Am I wrong? Does the idea of measurement being equivalent to complex computation show up somewhere in this paper, or does it do so elsewhere? Ruberik 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble with my citating the Oct 4 06 article. Could you help?

Reverse-chronological order

Shouldn’t this be in reverse-chronological order?! Can I go ahead and change it? --V4vijayakumar 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2006

is fact that just the previous year takes up almost half the timeline a reflection of acceleration of progress?--87.65.167.243 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

yesNicoli nicolivich 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Partially, but there's definitely a lot of spam in there. Most of the events are just headlines that have been copied and pasted. I mean, come on! There's no way "Electrons interacting with individual dopant atoms in silicon observed, a step to silicon based quantum computers." or "Entire history of single photon observed." or "New material proposed for quantum computing." belong there, at least not in that kind of wording. We really need an expert to (1)weed out the junk and (2) explain this stuff more meaningfully. Tcamps42 04:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but when I check these sources they all conform to the development of quantum computers and so are fit into the timeline. However, I tought of the idea of renaming the article from 'Timeline of quantum computing' into 'Timeline of development in quantum computing.' The reason because the whole article is only pointing out events in development. Reallife quantum computers have not been realised up to this time of writing. ;)

Kind Regards, --MisteryX 07:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted most of the developments here. I sort of flagged off when the page was flagged in May 2010 as not being properly formatted, so 2010 is coming in noticably short. The years from 2007 on get a bit shorter each year, too. Perhaps the low hanging fruit has been picked? I would like this page to be properly formatted by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.24.42 (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that the article isn't "properly formatted", it's that it's not a valid timeline of milestones in quantum computing. It's just a gigantic list of articles/papers, many of which have nothing to do with quantum computing, and a vast vast majority of which are not milestones. Many of the items appear to even directly duplicate results from earlier in the list. I mostly fixed 2010 and started fixing 2009, but someone just reverted it. Is there any way this issue can be pushed up the chain of editing command? Ndickson (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

source?

It looks like a partly c/p from thocp - quantum computers

Quantum time bomb

"2002 - 11th UK conference on the Foundations of Physics, the Philosophy Centre, University of Oxford, September 9 - 13 sees the exposition of the theory of the Quantum Time Bomb."

The theory of what? I don't know anything about quantum computing, normal bits are quite enough for me thanks, but this theory sounds like it's part of Quantum bogodynamics, and I think it just broke my bogon meter. Many of the very few hits I get on Google are about something called "Harry Potter and the Quantum Time Bomb"[1]. Is this really something serious and notable or just a joke? -- Coffee2theorems 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with quantum computing and I haven't heard of "Quantum Time Bomb". It's certainly not notable nearly the same degree as the other things listed for 2000-2004 and it may even be a joke. I'm removing it. If anyone puts it back, they should provide an explanation. Andris 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Roman Ingarden

Link to Roman Ingarden in this article is improper - the physycist involved was a son of Roman Ingarden, namely Roman Stanisław Ingarden. There isn't an article about him on English wiki however. See: pl:Roman Stanisław Ingarden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.124.165 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)