Quantum computing

A quantum computer is a computer that represents and

processes information using quantum states. Quantum
computations exploit phenomena such as superposition,
interference, and entanglement. Quantum computers have the
potential to complete some calculations exponentially faster than
classical computers. For example, a large-scale quantum
computer could break widely used encryption schemes and aid
physicists in performing physical simulations. However, current
hardware implementations of quantum computation are largely
experimental and suitable for only certain specialized tasks.

The basic unit of information in quantum computing, the qubit

(quantum bit), serves a similar function as the bit in ordinary or
"classical" computing.[1] Unlike a classical bit, which can be in
one of two states (a binary), a qubit can exist in a linear
combination of states known as a quantum superposition. The
result of measuring a qubit is one of the two states, given by a
IBM quantum computer demo at
probabilistic rule. If a quantum computer manipulates the qubit
ITU WTSA 2024 in Delhi
in a particular way, wave interference effects amplify the
probability of the desired measurement result. Quantum
algorithm design involves creating procedures that allow a
quantum computer to perform this amplification.

Quantum computers are not yet practical for real-world

applications. If a physical qubit is not sufficiently isolated from
its environment, it suffers from quantum decoherence,
introducing noise (error) into calculations. Governments have
invested in research aimed at developing qubits with longer
coherence times and lower error rates. Example implementations
include superconductors (which isolate an electrical current by
eliminating electrical resistance) and ion traps (which confine a
single atomic particle using electromagnetic fields). Researchers
have claimed that quantum devices can outperform classical
computers on specific tasks, a metric referred to as quantum Bloch sphere representation of a
advantage or quantum supremacy. Such tasks are not necessarily qubit. The state is a
useful for real-world applications. As a result, as of 2026 point on the surface of the sphere,
demonstrations are best understood as scientific milestones rather partway between the poles, and .
than evidence for near-term deployment. Global government
investment in quantum computing reached $10 billion by April 2025.[2]
History
Quantum mechanics and computer science formed distinct academic communities until the advent of
quantum computing.[3] Quantum theory was developed in the 1920s to explain perplexing physical
phenomena.[4][5] Computers emerged decades later.[6] Both disciplines had practical applications during
World War II; computers played a major role in wartime cryptography,[7] while quantum physics was
essential for nuclear physics, e.g., in the Manhattan Project.[8]

As physicists applied quantum mechanical models to computational problems and swapped bits for qubits,
quantum mechanics and computer science began to converge. In 1980, Paul Benioff introduced the quantum
Turing machine, which used quantum theory to describe a simplified computer.[9] As digital computers
became faster, physicists faced an exponential increase in overhead when simulating quantum dynamics,[10]
prompting Yuri Manin and Richard Feynman to independently suggest that hardware based on quantum
phenomena might be more efficient for computer simulation.[11][12][13] In a 1984 paper, Charles Bennett and
Gilles Brassard applied quantum theory to cryptography protocols and demonstrated that quantum key
distribution could enhance information security.[14][15]

Quantum algorithms then emerged for solving oracle problems, such as Deutsch's algorithm in 1985,[16] the
Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm in 1993,[17] and Simon's algorithm in 1994.[18] These algorithms did not solve
practical problems, but demonstrated mathematically that more information could be obtained by querying a
black box with a quantum state in superposition, sometimes referred to as quantum parallelism.[19]

Peter Shor built on these results in 1994 with polynomial-time

quantum algorithms for integer factorization and the discrete
logarithm problem.[20] A sufficiently large quantum computer could
therefore break widely used public-key cryptography systems:
efficient factorization would compromise RSA, while an efficient
discrete-logarithm algorithm would compromise Diffie–Hellman key
exchange. The cryptographic implications of Shor's algorithm drew
attention to quantum computing. In 1996, Grover's algorithm
established a quantum speedup for the unstructured search problem.
[21][22] The same year, Seth Lloyd proved that quantum computers

could simulate quantum systems without the exponential overhead

required by classical simulations,[23] validating Feynman's 1982
conjecture.[24]

Experimentalists constructed small-scale quantum computers using

trapped ions and superconductors.[25] In 1998, a two-qubit quantum Peter Shor (pictured here in
2017) showed in 1994 that a
computer demonstrated technical feasibility,[26][27] Subsequent
scalable quantum computer would
experiments increased the number of qubits and reduced error rates.
be able to break RSA encryption.
[25]

In 2019, Google AI and NASA announced that they had achieved quantum supremacy with a 54-qubit
machine, performing a computation that classical supercomputers would take an estimated 10,000 years to
complete—a claim subsequently disputed by IBM, which argued the calculation could be done in
approximately 2.5 days on its Summit supercomputer with optimized algorithms, sparking a debate over the
threshold for this milestone.[28][29][30][31][32]

Quantum computing increasingly focused on controlling decoherence through quantum error correction. In
2024, researchers demonstrated approaches for high threshold, low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory.
These developments represented a critical step toward scaling systems beyond the noisy intermediate-scale
quantum (NISQ) era into reliable, fault-tolerant computing architectures, though large-scale physical
implementation remains an engineering challenge.[33]

Quantum information processing

Computer engineers typically describe a modern computer's operation in terms of classical electrodynamics.
In these computers, components, such as semiconductors and random number generators, may rely on
quantum behavior; however, because they are not isolated from their environment, any quantum information
eventually quickly decoheres. While programmers may depend on probability theory when designing a
randomized algorithm, quantum-mechanical notions such as superposition and wave interference are largely
irrelevant in program analysis.

The "classical" in classical computation thus refers to the computational model, not to whether the
microscopic physics of the hardware is ultimately quantum-mechanical. A conventional digital computer can
be described by classical states and transition rules: memory stores bits, while logic elements transform one
configuration of bits into another. This computational behavior is not tied to electronics, and can be
abstracted through the idea of a Turing machine, a mechanical device that performs deterministic
transformations on a finite state. In principle, the same classical transition rules can be implemented by some
entirely classical mechanical device, possibly with a fixed slow-down in physical time.[34] If a classical
computation uses randomness, this can be modeled as access to random classical bits rather than as coherent
quantum information.[35] A quantum computer, by contrast, uses coherent quantum states, so that
superposition, relative phase, and interference are part of the computation itself, and have no classical
counterpart.

Quantum programs instead rely on precise control of coherent quantum systems. Physicists describe these
systems mathematically using linear algebra. Complex numbers model probability amplitudes, vectors model
quantum states, and matrices model the operations that can be performed on these states. Programming a
quantum computer is then a matter of composing operations in such a way that the resulting program
computes a useful result in theory and is implementable in practice.

Physicist Charlie Bennett noted that since classical computers are composed of quantum atoms, one might
study them from the opposite direction:[36]

A classical computer is a quantum computer ... so we shouldn't be asking about "where do quantum
speedups come from?" We should say, "Well, all computers are quantum. ... Where do classical
slowdowns come from?"
Quantum information
The bit is the basic concept of classical information theory. A bit is in one of two physical states, typically
denoted 0 and 1.

The qubit is the unit of quantum information. A qubit is an abstract mathematical model that applies to any
physical system that is represented by that model. When measured, a qubit takes one of two states or .
However, the quantum states and belong to a vector space, meaning that they can be multiplied by
constants and added together, returning a valid quantum state. Such a combination is known as a
superposition of and .[37][38]

A two-dimensional vector mathematically represents a qubit state. Physicists typically use bra–ket notation
for quantum mechanical linear algebra, writing 'ket psi' for a vector labeled . Because a qubit is a two-
state system, any qubit state takes the form , where and are the standard basis states,[a]
and and are the probability amplitudes, which are in general complex numbers.[38] If either or is
zero, the qubit is effectively a classical bit; when both are nonzero, the qubit is in superposition. Such a
quantum state vector behaves similarly to a (classical) probability vector, with one key difference: unlike
probabilities, probability amplitudes are not necessarily positive numbers.[40] Negative amplitudes allow for
destructive wave interference.

When a qubit is measured in the standard basis, the result is a classical bit. The Born rule describes the
norm-squared correspondence between amplitudes and probabilities—when measuring a qubit ,
the state collapses to with probability , or to with probability . Any valid qubit state has
coefficients and such that . As an example, measuring the qubit
would produce either or with equal probability.

Two particularly important superposition states are the plus state and the minus
state . While both yield outcomes 0 and 1 with equal probability upon standard
basis measurement, they behave differently under operations such as the Hadamard gate—which maps
and —demonstrating that relative phase differences carry meaningful quantum
information.

Each additional qubit doubles the dimension of the state space.[39] As an example, the vector
1 1
√2 |00⟩ + √2 |01⟩ represents a two-qubit state, a tensor product of the qubit |0⟩ with the qubit
1 1
√2 |0⟩ + √2 |1⟩. This vector inhabits a four-dimensional vector space spanned by the basis vectors |00⟩, |01⟩,
|10⟩, and |11⟩.

In general, the vector space for an n-qubit system is 2n-dimensional, and this makes it challenging for a
classical computer to simulate a quantum one: representing a 100-qubit system requires storing 2100 classical
values.

Unitary operators
The state of this one-qubit quantum memory can be manipulated by applying quantum logic gates, analogous
to how classical memory can be manipulated with classical logic gates. One important gate for both classical
and quantum computation is the NOT gate, which can be represented by a matrix

Mathematically, the application of such a logic gate to a quantum state vector is modeled with matrix
multiplication. Thus

and .

The mathematics of single-qubit gates can be extended to operate on multi-qubit quantum memories in two
important ways. One way is to select a qubit and apply that gate to the target qubit while leaving the
remainder of the memory unaffected. Another way is to apply the gate to its target only if another part of the
memory is in a desired state. These two choices can be illustrated using another example. The possible states
of a two-qubit quantum memory are:

The controlled NOT (CNOT) gate can then be represented using the following matrix:

As a mathematical consequence of this definition, , ,

, and . In other words, the CNOT applies a NOT gate ( from
before) to the second qubit if and only if the first qubit is in the state . If the first qubit is , nothing is
done to either qubit.

In summary, quantum computation can be described as a network of quantum logic gates and measurements.
However, any measurement can be deferred to the end of quantum computation, though this deferment may
come at a computational cost, so most quantum circuits depict a network consisting only of quantum logic
gates and no measurements.

Quantum parallelism
Quantum parallelism is a heuristic that quantum computers can be thought of as evaluating a function for
multiple input values simultaneously. This can be achieved by preparing a quantum system in a superposition
of input states and applying a unitary transformation that encodes the function to be evaluated. The resulting
state encodes the function's output values for all input values in the superposition, enabling the simultaneous
computation of multiple outputs. This property is key to the acceleration of many quantum algorithms.
However, parallelism in this sense is insufficient to speed up a computation, because the measurement at the
end of the computation gives only one value. To be useful, a quantum algorithm must also incorporate some
other conceptual ingredient.[41][42]

Quantum programming
Various models of computation are used for quantum computing, distinguished by the basic elements in
which the computation is decomposed.

Gate array
A quantum gate array decomposes computation into a
sequence of few-qubit quantum gates. A quantum
computation can be described as a network of quantum
logic gates and measurements. Any measurement can be
deferred to the end of quantum computation, though this A quantum circuit diagram implementing
deferment may come at a computational cost, so most a Toffoli gate from more primitive gates
quantum circuits depict a network consisting only of
quantum logic gates and no measurements.

Any quantum computation (in the above formalism, any unitary matrix of size over qubits) can be
represented as a network of quantum logic gates from a fairly small family of gates. A choice of gate family
that enables this construction is known as a universal gate set, since a computer that can run such circuits is a
universal quantum computer. One common such set includes all single-qubit gates as well as the CNOT gate.
This means any quantum computation can be performed by executing a sequence of single-qubit gates
together with CNOT gates. Though this gate set is infinite, it can be replaced with a finite gate set by
appealing to the Solovay-Kitaev theorem. Implementation of Boolean functions using the few-qubit quantum
gates is presented here.[43]

Quantum Turing machine

A quantum Turing machine is the quantum analog of a Turing machine.[9] All of these models of
computation—quantum circuits,[44] one-way quantum computation,[45] adiabatic quantum computation,[46]
and topological quantum computation[47]—have been shown to be equivalent to the quantum Turing
machine; given a perfect implementation of one such quantum computer, it can simulate all the others with
no more than polynomial overhead. This equivalence need not hold for practical quantum computers, since
the overhead of simulation may be too large to be practical.

Quantum-computing paradigms
A measurement-based quantum computer decomposes computation into a sequence of Bell state
measurements and single-qubit quantum gates applied to a highly entangled initial state (a cluster state),
using a technique called quantum gate teleportation.

An adiabatic quantum computer, based on quantum annealing, decomposes computation into a slow
continuous transformation of an initial Hamiltonian into a final Hamiltonian, whose ground states contain the
solution.[48]
A topological quantum computer decomposes computation into the braiding of anyons in a 2D lattice.[49]

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing

The threshold theorem shows how increasing the number of qubits can mitigate errors,[50] yet fully fault-
tolerant quantum computing remains out of reach as of 2026.[51] According to some researchers, noisy
intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) machines may have specialized uses in the near future, but noise in
quantum gates limits their reliability.[51] Scientists at Harvard created "quantum circuits" that correct errors
more efficiently than alternative methods, which may remove a major obstacle to practical quantum
computers.[52] The Harvard research team was supported by MIT, QuEra Computing, Caltech, and Princeton
and funded by DARPA's Optimization with Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum devices (ONISQ) program.
[53][54]

Communication
Quantum cryptography enables methods for secure data transmission; for example, quantum key distribution
uses entangled quantum states to establish secure cryptographic keys.[55]: 1017 When a sender and receiver
exchange quantum states, they can guarantee that an adversary does not intercept the message, as any
eavesdropper would disturb the delicate quantum system and introduce a detectable change.[56] With
appropriate cryptographic protocols, the sender and receiver can privately share information resistant to
eavesdropping.[14][57]

Modern fiber-optic cables can transmit quantum information over relatively short distances. Ongoing
experimental research aims to develop more reliable hardware (such as quantum repeaters), hoping to scale
this technology to long-distance quantum networks with end-to-end entanglement. Theoretically, this could
enable novel technological applications, such as distributed quantum computing and enhanced quantum
sensing.[58][59]

Quantum communication protocols

Quantum teleportation is a protocol by which Alice can transmit the quantum state of a qubit to Bob using
one shared entangled pair (e-bit) and two classical bits of communication. The state of Alice's qubit is not
physically transmitted—instead, it is reconstructed at Bob's end through classically communicated
measurement outcomes and local unitary corrections. This demonstrates that quantum communication
requires both entanglement and classical communication; neither alone is sufficient. Teleportation cannot be
used to transmit information faster than light because the classical bits must travel through normal channels.

Superdense coding is the complementary protocol: using one shared e-bit and sending only one qubit, Alice
can transmit two classical bits to Bob. This appears to violate Holevo's theorem—which states that a single
qubit can carry at most one bit of classical information—but the shared entanglement circumvents this limit.
Superdense coding thus demonstrates that entanglement can effectively double the classical information-
carrying capacity of quantum communication.
Algorithms
Progress in finding quantum algorithms typically focuses on the quantum circuit model,[44] though exceptions
such as the quantum adiabatic algorithm exist. Quantum algorithms can be roughly categorized by the type of
speedup achieved over corresponding classical algorithms.[60]

Quantum algorithms that offer more than a polynomial speedup over the best-known classical algorithm
include Shor's algorithm for factoring and the related quantum algorithms for computing discrete logarithms,
solving Pell's equation, and, more generally, solving the hidden subgroup problem for abelian finite groups.
[60] These algorithms depend on the primitive of the quantum Fourier transform. No mathematical proof has

been found that shows that an equally fast classical algorithm cannot be discovered, but evidence suggests
that this is unlikely.[61] Certain oracle problems like Simon's problem and the Bernstein–Vazirani problem do
give provable speedups, though this is in the quantum query model, which is a restricted model where lower
bounds are much easier to prove and don't necessarily translate to practical problems.

Other problems, including the simulation of quantum physical processes from chemistry and solid-state
physics, the approximation of certain Jones polynomials, and the quantum algorithm for linear systems of
equations, have quantum algorithms appearing to give super-polynomial speedups and are BQP-complete.
Because these problems are BQP-complete, an equally fast classical algorithm for them would imply that "no
quantum algorithm" provides a super-polynomial speedup, which is unlikely.[62]

In addition to these problems, quantum algorithms are explored for applications in cryptography,
optimization, and machine learning, although most of these remain at the research stage and require
significant advances in error correction and hardware scalability for practical implementation.[63]

Some quantum algorithms, such as Grover's algorithm and amplitude amplification, give polynomial
speedups over corresponding classical algorithms.[60] Though these algorithms give comparably modest
quadratic speedup, they are widely applicable and thus accelerate a wide range of problems.[22] These
improvements are, however, over the theoretical worst-case of classical algorithms, and real-world speed-ups
over traditional algorithms have not been demonstrated.

Simulation of quantum systems

Since chemistry and nanotechnology rely on understanding quantum systems, and such systems are
impossible to efficiently simulate classically, quantum simulation may be an important application.[64]
Quantum computational chemistry is promising for quantum computing, particularly for problems in
electronic structure, chemical dynamics, and spectroscopy; useful implementations remain hardware-limited.
[65] Quantum simulation could be used to simulate the behavior of atoms and particles under unusual

conditions such as the reactions inside a collider.[66] In June 2023, IBM computer scientists reported that a
quantum computer produced better results for a physics problem than a conventional supercomputer.[67][68]

About 2% of the annual global energy output is used for nitrogen fixation to produce ammonia for the Haber
process in the agricultural fertiliser industry. Quantum simulations might be used to understand this process
and increase energy efficiency.[69][70][71][72]
Cryptography
Digital cryptography enables communications to remain private, preventing unauthorized parties from
accessing them. Conventional encryption, the obscuring of a message with a key through an algorithm, relies
on the algorithm being difficult to reverse. Encryption underlies digital signatures and authentication
mechanisms. Quantum computing may be sufficiently more powerful that difficult reversals are feasible,
allowing messages relying on conventional encryption to be read.[73]

Thus quantum computing can in theory be used to attack currently-used cryptographic systems. Integer
factorization, which underpins the security of public key cryptographic systems, is believed to be
computationally infeasible on a classical computer for large integers that are the product of a few prime
numbers (e.g., the product of two 300-digit primes).[74] By contrast, a quantum computer could solve this
problem exponentially faster using Shor's algorithm to factor the integer.[75] This would allow a quantum
computer to break many widely-used cryptographic systems, in the sense that a polynomial time (in the
number of digits of the integer) algorithm could do so. In particular, most popular public key ciphers rely on
the difficulty of factoring integers or the discrete logarithm. In particular, RSA, Diffie–Hellman, and elliptic
curve Diffie–Hellman algorithms could be broken. These are used to secure Web pages, encrypted emails,
and many other data. Breaking these would have significant ramifications for electronic privacy and security.

Identifying cryptographic systems that are secure against quantum algorithms is an actively researched topic
under the field of post-quantum cryptography.[76][77] Some public-key algorithms are based on problems that
Shor's algorithm cannot solve, such as the McEliece cryptosystem, which relies on a hard problem in coding
theory.[76][78] Lattice-based cryptosystems are not known to be susceptible to quantum computers, and
finding a polynomial time algorithm for solving the dihedral hidden subgroup problem, which would break
many lattice-based cryptosystems, is a well-studied open problem.[79] Applying Grover's algorithm to break a
symmetric (secret-key) algorithm by brute force requires roughly 2n/2 invocations of the underlying
cryptographic algorithm, compared with roughly 2n in the classical case,[80] meaning that symmetric key
lengths are effectively halved: AES-256 would have comparable security against such an attack to that of
AES-128 against classical brute-force search.

Post-quantum algorithms are designed to run but be difficult to break on a classical computer. Quantum
cryptography replaces conventional encryption algorithms with techniques based on quantum mechanics such
as entanglement. In principle, quantum encryption cannot be decoded even by a quantum computer. This
advantage comes at a significant infrastructure cost, while effectively preventing legitimate decoding of
messages.[73]

Search problems
The most well-known example of a problem that allows for a polynomial quantum speedup is unstructured
search, which involves finding a marked item out of a list of items in a database. This can be solved by
Grover's algorithm using queries to the database, quadratically fewer than the queries required
for classical algorithms. In this case, the advantage is not only provable but also optimal: it has been shown
that Grover's algorithm gives the maximal possible probability of finding the desired element for any number
of oracle lookups. Many examples of provable speedups for query problems are based on Grover's algorithm,
including Brassard, Høyer, and Tapp's algorithm for finding collisions in two-to-one functions,[81] and Farhi,
Goldstone, and Gutmann's algorithm for evaluating NAND trees.[82]

Problems that can be efficiently addressed with Grover's algorithm have the following properties:[83][84]

▪ The collection of possible answers has no searchable structure

▪ The number of possible answers to check is the same as the number of inputs to the
algorithm,
▪ A Boolean function exists that evaluates each input and determines whether it is the
correct answer.
For problems with all these properties, the running time of Grover's algorithm on a quantum computer scales
as the square root of the number of inputs (or elements in the database), as opposed to the linear scaling of
classical algorithms. A general class of problems to which Grover's algorithm can be applied[85] is a Boolean
satisfiability problem, in which the algorithm iterates through all possible answers. An example and possible
application of this is a password cracker that attempts to guess a password. Breaking symmetric ciphers with
this algorithm is of interest to government agencies.[86]

Quantum annealing
Quantum annealing uses the adiabatic theorem to perform
calculations. A system is placed in the ground state for a simple
Hamiltonian, which evolves to a more complicated Hamiltonian
whose ground state represents the solution to the problem in
question. The adiabatic theorem states that if the evolution is
slow enough, the system stays in its ground state throughout the
process. Quantum annealing can solve Ising models and the
(computationally equivalent) quadratic unconstrained binary
optimisation (QUBO) problem, which in turn can be used to
A wafer of adiabatic quantum
encode a wide range of combinatorial optimization problems.[87]
computers
Adiabatic optimization may be helpful for solving computational
biology problems.[88]

Machine learning
Since quantum computers can produce outputs that classical computers cannot produce efficiently, and since
quantum computation is fundamentally linear algebra, so quantum algorithms that can speed up machine
learning tasks may be possible.[51][89] However, review literature notes that many proposed quantum
machine-learning advantages rely on assumptions about efficient data encoding or continued access to
quantum hardware, and have not translated into practical advantage as of 2024.[90][91] For example, the HHL
Algorithm is believed to provide speedup over classical counterparts.[51][92] Research groups have explored
quantum annealing hardware for training Boltzmann machines and deep neural networks.[93][94][95]

Deep generative chemistry models have been explored for potential applications in drug discovery. Near-term
quantum hardware has been explored for molecular generative modeling for drug discovery. In 2023,
researchers reported a hybrid quantum–classical generative model based on a restricted Boltzmann machine,
implemented on a commercially available quantum annealing device, to generate novel small molecules with
physicochemical properties comparable to medicinal compounds.[96][97] However, the immense size and
complexity of the structural space of all possible relevant molecules pose significant obstacles, which could
be overcome in the future by quantum computers. Quantum computers are naturally good for solving
complex quantum many-body problems[23] and thus may apply to applications involving quantum chemistry.
Quantum-enhanced generative models[98] including quantum generative adversarial networks (GANs)[99]
may be developed into generative chemistry algorithms.

AI-assisted algorithm discovery

Artificial intelligence has been explored as a tool for discovering and optimizing quantum algorithms.
AlphaEvolve, a Google DeepMind system based on large language models and evolutionary algorithms, has
been described as a coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery.[100] In quantum-computing
research, AlphaEvolve-optimized quantum circuits have been used in work on quantum computation of
molecular geometry through many-body nuclear spin echoes.[101]

Engineering
As of 2023, classical computers outperformed quantum computers for all real-world application.[102][103]

Challenges
Many technical challenges confront the building a large-scale quantum computer.[104] Physicist David
DiVincenzo has listed these requirements for a practical quantum computer:[105]

▪ Physically scalable to increase the number of qubits

▪ Qubits that can be initialized to arbitrary values
▪ Quantum gates that are faster than decoherence time
▪ Universal gate set
▪ Qubits that are easily read.
The control of multi-qubit systems requires the rapid generation and coordination of a large number of
electrical signals with deterministic timing. This has led to the development of quantum controllers that
enable interfacing with the qubits. Scaling these systems to support many qubits is an additional challenge.
[106]

The potential to break public-key encryption has motivated changes in global cybersecurity strategies. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated detailed standardization processes for post-
quantum cryptography. These global efforts are designed to develop, evaluate, and deploy cryptographic
algorithms that remain safe against both quantum and classical attacks.[107]

Coolant
Sourcing parts for quantum computers is difficult. Superconducting quantum computers, such as those
constructed by Google and IBM, need helium-3, a nuclear research byproduct, and special superconducting
cables made only by one company, Coax Co.[108] On 27 January 2026, DARPA called for proposals for a
quantum computing coolant below 1 kelvin, which does not use helium-3. In February 2026, the Chinese
Academy of Sciences announced the testing of a rare-earth alloy, EuCo2Al9, which could fill a similar role.
[109]

Decoherence
Quantum decoherence must be controlled or eliminated. Error rates are typically proportional to the ratio of
operating time to decoherence time; hence, any operation must be completed much more quickly than the
decoherence time. This usually means isolating the system from its environment, as external interactions
cause decoherence. However, other sources also exist. Examples include the quantum gates, the lattice
vibrations, and the background thermonuclear spin of the physical system that implements the qubits.
Decoherence is irreversible, as it is effectively non-unitary, and must be controlled or avoided. Decoherence
times for candidate systems in particular, the transverse relaxation time T2 (for NMR and MRI technology,
also called the dephasing time), typically range between nanoseconds and seconds at low temperatures.[110]
Some quantum computers require their qubits to be cooled to 20 millikelvin (usually using a dilution
refrigerator[111]) in order to prevent significant decoherence.[112] A 2020 study reported that ionizing
radiation such as cosmic rays can cause certain systems to decohere within milliseconds.[113]

As a result, time-consuming tasks may render some quantum algorithms inoperable, as maintaining the state
of qubits over a long period eventually corrupts the superpositions.[114]

These issues are more difficult for optical approaches as the timescales are orders of magnitude shorter. An
often-cited approach to overcoming them is optical pulse shaping.

As described by the threshold theorem, if the error rate is small enough, it is thought to be possible to use
quantum error correction to suppress errors and decoherence. This allows the total calculation time to be
longer than the decoherence time if the error correction scheme can correct errors faster than decoherence
introduces them. An often-cited figure for the required error rate in each gate for fault-tolerant computation is
10−3, assuming the noise is depolarizing.
Meeting this scalability condition is possible for a wide range of systems. However, error correction requires
far more qubits. The number required to factor integers using Shor's algorithm is still polynomial, and
thought to be between L and L2, where L is the number of binary digits in the number to be factored; error
correction algorithms would inflate this figure by an additional factor of L. For a 1000-bit number, this
implies a need for about 104 bits without error correction.[115] With error correction, the figure would rise to
about 107 bits. Computation time is about L2 or about 107 steps and at 1 MHz, about 10 seconds. However,
the encoding and error-correction overheads increase the size of a real fault-tolerant quantum computer by
orders of magnitude. Estimates[116][117] show that at least 3 million physical qubits would factor a 2,048-bit
integer in 5 months on a fully error-corrected trapped-ion quantum computer. In terms of the number of
physical qubits, to date, this remains the lowest estimate[118] for practically useful integer factorization
problem sizing 1,024-bit or larger.

One approach to overcoming errors combines low-density parity-check code with cat qubits that have
intrinsic bit-flip error suppression. Implementing 100 logical qubits with 768 cat qubits could reduce the
error rate to one part in 108 per cycle per bit.[119]

Another approach to the stability-decoherence problem is to create a topological quantum computer with
anyons, quasi-particles used as threads, and relying on braid theory to form stable logic gates.[120][121] Non-
Abelian anyons can, in effect, remember how they have been manipulated, making them potentially useful in
quantum computing.[122] As of 2025, Microsoft and other organizations were investing in quasi-particle
research.[122]

Modular and distributed architectures

One approach to the scalability problem is to distribute a computation across multiple smaller quantum
processing modules instead of increasing the number of qubits in a single device. In such modular
architectures — also referred to as distributed quantum computing (DQC) — each module contains a limited
number of qubits, and the modules are interconnected through quantum channels (for example, optical fibres)
and classical communication links, forming a single logical computing system.[123]

In one strategy, the quantum logic between qubits in different modules is applied using quantum gate
teleportation, using remote entanglement between the modules, but local operations and measurements
within each module, and classical communication of measurement outcomes.[124] Quantum algorithms
distributed across a photonic network link between trapped-ion modules, as well as teleported two-qubit gates
between remote solid-state qubit registers based on nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, were demonstrated
in 2025.[123][125]

High rate and high fidelity remote entanglement generation across the network is the core challenge in
distributed protocols. Quantum sensing may became integral to a distributed quantum computer.[126]

Quantum supremacy
John Preskill coined the term quantum supremacy to describe the engineering feat of demonstrating that a
programmable quantum device can solve a problem beyond the capabilities of classical computers.[127][51]
[128] The problem need not be useful, so quantum supremacy test may be just a future benchmark.[129]

In October 2019, Google Quantum AI, with the help of NASA, became the first to claim to have achieved
quantum supremacy by performing calculations on the Sycamore quantum computer more than 3,000,000
times faster than they could be done on Summit, then generally considered the world's fastest computer.[29]
[130][131] This claim was challenged: IBM stated that Summit can perform samples much faster than claimed.
[132][133] Researchers later developed better quantum algorithms for the sampling problem,[134][135][136]

possibly beating Summit.[137][138][139]

In December 2020, a group at USTC implemented a type of boson sampling on 76 photons with a photonic
quantum computer, Jiuzhang, seeking quantum supremacy.[140][141][142] The authors claimed that a classical
computer would require 600 million years to generate the number of samples their quantum processor
generated in 20 seconds.[143]

Hyped claims of quantum supremacy,[144] were based on tasks that do not directly imply real-world
applications.[102][145]

A January 2024 study reported verification of quantum supremacy experiments by computing exact
amplitudes for experimentally generated bitstrings using a Sunway supercomputer, demonstrating a
significant leap in simulation capability built on a multiple-amplitude tensor network contraction algorithm.
[146]

State of affairs: 2020s

Despite high hopes for quantum computing, significant progress in hardware, and optimism about future
applications, a 2023 article summarized current quantum computers as "For now, [good for] absolutely
nothing". The article claimed that quantum computers are yet of no practical use although they are likely to
be useful, someday.[102] A 2023 article stated that quantum computing algorithms are "insufficient for
practical quantum advantage without significant improvements across the software/hardware stack". It
foretold that the most promising candidates for achieving speedup with quantum computers are "small-data
problems", for example, in chemistry and materials science. It concluded that many application domains,
such as machine learning, "will not achieve quantum advantage with current quantum algorithms in the
foreseeable future", and it identified I/O constraints that make speedup unlikely for "big data problems,
unstructured linear systems, and database search based on Grover's algorithm".[103]

This state of affairs can be traced to several current and long-term considerations.

▪ Conventional computer hardware and algorithms are optimized for practical tasks and
are still improving rapidly.
▪ Quantum computing hardware generates is overwhelmed by noise before completing
any useful tasks.
▪ Quantum algorithms provide speedup only for some tasks, and matching these tasks
with practical applications is challenging. Some of these require resources far beyond
those available.[147][148] In particular, processing large amounts of data is a challenge.[103]
▪ Some promising algorithms have been "dequantized", i.e., non-quantum analogues with
similar complexity have been found.
▪ The overhead of quantum error correction may undermine the speedup offered by many
quantum algorithms.[103]
▪ Algorithm complexity analysis may make abstract assumptions that do not hold in
applications. For example, input data may not be available encoded in quantum states,
and "oracle functions" used in Grover's algorithm often have internal structure that can
be exploited for faster algorithms.
In particular, building computers with large numbers of qubits may be futile if those qubits are not connected
well enough and cannot sustain sufficient entanglement for enough time. Researchers often choose novel
tasks to differentiate quantum devices, and to prove lower bounds on the complexity of classical algorithms,
but this is not always possible.

Bill Unruh doubted the practicality of quantum computers in a paper published in 1994.[149] Paul Davies
argued that a 400-qubit computer would conflict with the cosmological information bound implied by the
holographic principle.[150] Gil Kalai doubted that quantum supremacy would ever be achieved.[151][152][153]
Physicist Mikhail Dyakonov expressed skepticism of quantum computing as follows:

"So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful
quantum computer at any given moment must be... about 10300... Could we ever learn
to control the more than 10300 continuously variable parameters defining the quantum
state of such a system? My answer is simple. No, never."[154]

Physical realizations
A practical quantum computer must use a physical
system as a programmable quantum register.[156]
Researchers are exploring several technologies as
candidates for reliable qubit implementations.[157]
Superconductors and trapped ions are some of the most
developed proposals, but experimentalists are considering
other hardware possibilities as well.[158] For example,
topological quantum computer approaches are being
explored for more fault-tolerance computing systems.[159]

The first quantum logic gates were implemented with

Quantum System One, a quantum computer
trapped ions and prototype general-purpose machines by IBM from 2019 with 20 superconducting
with up to 20 qubits have been realized. However, the qubits[155]
technology behind these devices combines complex
vacuum equipment, lasers, and microwave and radio
frequency equipment, making full-scale processors difficult to integrate with standard computing equipment.
Moreover, the trapped ion system itself has engineering challenges to overcome.[160]

The largest commercial systems are based on superconductor devices and have scaled to 2000 qubits.
However, the error rates for larger machines have been on the order of 5%. Technologically, these devices are
all cryogenic and scaling to large numbers of qubits requires wafer-scale integration, a serious engineering
challenge by itself.[161]

In addition to cryogenic platforms, room-temperature approaches to spin–photon interfaces have been

experimentally demonstrated. In 2025, researchers at Stanford University realized a nanoscale device in
which a thin layer of molybdenum diselenide is integrated on a nanostructured silicon substrate, enabling a
spin–photon interface that operates at ambient conditions using structured "twisted" light to couple electronic
and photonic degrees of freedom.[162][163] Such room-temperature, chip-integrated spin–photon interfaces
are being investigated as potential building blocks for heterogeneous quantum networks that combine
different qubit modalities and reduce reliance on large cryogenic infrastructures.[162][164]

Theory
Computability
Any computational problem solvable by a classical computer is also solvable by a quantum computer.[165]
Intuitively, this is because all physical phenomena, including the operation of classical computers, can be
described using quantum mechanics, which underlies the operation of quantum computers.

Conversely, any problem solvable by a quantum computer is also solvable by a classical computer. It is
possible to simulate both quantum and classical computers manually with just some paper and a pen, if given
enough time. Formally, any quantum or classical computer can be simulated by a Turing machine. Quantum
computers provide no computability power over classical computers. Thus, quantum computers cannot solve
undecidable problems like the halting problem, and the existence of quantum computers does not disprove
the Church–Turing thesis.[166]

Complexity
While quantum computers cannot solve any problems that classical computers cannot already solve, it is
suspected that they can solve certain problems faster than classical computers. For instance, it is known that
quantum computers can efficiently factor integers, while this is not believed to be the case for classical
computers.

The class of problems that can be efficiently solved by a quantum computer with bounded error is called
BQP, for "bounded error, quantum, polynomial time". More formally, BQP is the class of problems that can
be solved by a polynomial-time quantum Turing machine with an error probability of at most 1/3. As a class
of probabilistic problems, BQP is the quantum counterpart to BPP ("bounded error, probabilistic, polynomial
time"), the class of problems that can be solved by polynomial-time probabilistic Turing machines with
bounded error.[167] but no proof demonstrates that , which intuitively would
mean that quantum computers offer superior time complexity over classical computers.[168]

The exact relationship of BQP to P, NP, and PSPACE is not

known. However, it is known that ; that
is, all problems that can be efficiently solved by a classical
computer can be efficiently solved by a quantum computer, and
all problems that can be efficiently solved by a quantum
computer can be solved by a classical computer with polynomial
space resources.

It is suspected that BQP is a strict superset of P, meaning that

problems exist that are efficiently solvable by quantum computers
that are not efficiently solvable by classical computers. For
The suspected relationship of BQP
instance, integer factorization and the discrete logarithm problem to several classical complexity
are in BQP and are suspected to be outside of P. On the classes[62]
relationship of BQP to NP, little is known except that NP
problems that are not in P are in BQP (integer factorization and
the discrete logarithm problem are both in NP, for example). It is suspected that ; that is, it is
believed that some efficiently checkable problems are not efficiently solvable by a quantum computer. A
direct consequence is that BQP is disjoint from the class of NP-complete problems (if an NP-complete
problem were in BQP, then it would follow from NP-hardness that all problems in NP are in BQP).[169]

List of quantum computers

▪ Hanyuan-1 — 100-qubit neutral atom quantum computer from the Chinese Academy of
Sciences in China.[170]
▪ IBM Quantum System One — IBM superconducting quantum-computing system
introduced in 2019.[171]
▪ IBM Quantum System Two — modular superconducting system using IBM Heron
processors.
▪ Jiuzhang — photonic quantum-computing prototype for Gaussian boson sampling.[172]
▪ QpiAI-Indus — 25-qubit superconducting quantum computer from QpiAI in India.[173]

Types of quantum computers

▪ Cat qubit quantum computer — proposed approach based on cat-state qubits.
▪ Kane quantum computer — proposed silicon-based nuclear spin quantum-computer
architecture.
▪ Linear optical quantum computing — photonic model using photons and linear optical
elements.
▪ Neutral atom quantum computer — approach using neutral atoms trapped and
controlled with optical techniques.
▪ Nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer — approach using nuclear magnetic
resonance and molecular nuclear-spin states.
▪ Spin qubit quantum computer — semiconductor architecture using spin states as qubits.
▪ Superconducting quantum computing — approach using superconducting electronic
circuits.
▪ Topological quantum computer — proposed approach using topological states such as
anyons.
▪ Trapped-ion quantum computer — approach using trapped charged atoms as qubits.

See also

▪ D-Wave Systems – Quantum computing company

▪ Electronic quantum holography – Information storage technology
▪ Glossary of quantum computing
▪ Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity – American government agency
▪ India's quantum computer – Indian proposed quantum computer
 ▪ QpiAI-Indus – India's first full stack quantum computer
▪ IonQ – US information technology company
▪ List of emerging technologies – New technologies actively in development
▪ List of quantum computing journals
▪ List of quantum computing books
▪ List of quantum software
▪ Magic state distillation – Quantum computing algorithm
▪ Metacomputing – Computing for the purpose of computing
▪ Natural computing – Methods that imitate, replicate or use natural processes
▪ Non-local quantum computation – Method of quantum computing via entanglement
▪ Optical computing – Computer that uses photons or light waves
▪ Quantum bus – Device to store or transfer information in quantum computing
▪ Quantum cognition – Application of quantum theory mathematics to cognitive
phenomena
▪ Quantum sensor – Device measuring quantum mechanical effects
▪ Quantum volume – Metric for a quantum computer's capabilities
▪ Quantum weirdness – Unintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics
▪ Rigetti Computing – American quantum computing company
▪ Supercomputer – Type of extremely powerful computer
▪ Theoretical computer science – Subfield of computer science and mathematics
▪ Unconventional computing – Computing by new or unusual methods
▪ Valleytronics – Experimental area in semiconductors

Notes

a. The standard basis is also the computational basis.[39]

References
1. Mermin 2007, p. 1.
2. "Quantum Computing Just Hit a Milestone That Experts Said Was a Decade Away — and
the Race Is Only Getting Faster" ([Link]
estone-that-experts-said-was-a-decade-away-and-the-race-is-only-getting-faster/).
thefirmo. 20 May 2026. Retrieved 23 May 2026.
3. Aaronson 2013, p. 132.
 4. Zwiebach, Barton (2022). Mastering Quantum Mechanics: Essentials, Theory, and
Applications. MIT Press. §1. ISBN 978-0-262-04613-8. "Quantum physics has replaced
classical physics as the correct fundamental description of our physical universe. It is
used routinely to describe most phenomena that occur at short distances. [...] The era of
quantum physics began in earnest in 1925 with the discoveries of Erwin Schrödinger and
Werner Heisenberg. The seeds for these discoveries were planted by Max Planck, Albert
Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, and others."
5. Weinberg, Steven (2015). "Historical Introduction". Lectures on Quantum Mechanics
(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–30. ISBN 978-1-107-11166-0.
6. Ceruzzi, Paul E. (2012). Computing: A Concise History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press. pp. 3, 46. ISBN 978-0-262-31038-3. OCLC 796812982 ([Link]
lc/796812982).
7. Hodges, Andrew (2014). Alan Turing: The Enigma. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press. p. xviii. ISBN 978-0-691-16472-4.
8. Mårtensson-Pendrill, Ann-Marie (1 November 2006). "The Manhattan project—a part of
physics history". Physics Education. 41 (6): 493–501. Bibcode:2006PhyEd..41..493M (https://
[Link]/abs/2006PhyEd..41..493M). doi:10.1088/0031-9120/41/6/001 (http
s://[Link]/10.1088%2F0031-9120%2F41%2F6%2F001). ISSN 0031-9120 ([Link]
[Link]/issn/0031-9120). S2CID 120294023 ([Link]
20294023).
9. Benioff, Paul (1980). "The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum
mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines". Journal
of Statistical Physics. 22 (5): 563–591. Bibcode:1980JSP....22..563B ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1980JSP....22..563B). doi:10.1007/bf01011339 ([Link]
11339). S2CID 122949592 ([Link]
10. Buluta, Iulia; Nori, Franco (2 October 2009). "Quantum Simulators". Science. 326 (5949):
108–111. Bibcode:2009Sci...326..108B ([Link]
8B). doi:10.1126/science.1177838 ([Link]
ISSN 0036-8075 ([Link] PMID 19797653 ([Link]
[Link]/19797653). S2CID 17187000 ([Link]
usID:17187000).
11. Manin, Yu. I. (1980). Vychislimoe i nevychislimoe ([Link]
823/[Link]
vychislimoe.(1980).%5Bdjv%[Link]) [Computable and Noncomputable] (in Russian). Soviet
Radio. pp. 13–15. Archived from the original ([Link]
_Ivanovich/Manin_Yu.I._Vychislimoe_i_nevychislimoe.(1980).%5bdjv-fax%[Link]) on 10
May 2013. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
12. Feynman, Richard (June 1982). "Simulating Physics with Computers" ([Link]
[Link]/web/20190108115138/[Link]
[Link]) (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 21 (6/7): 467–488.
Bibcode:1982IJTP...21..467F ([Link]
doi:10.1007/BF02650179 ([Link] S2CID 124545445 (htt
ps://[Link]/CorpusID:124545445). Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/~christos/classics/[Link]) (PDF) on 8 January 2019.
Retrieved 28 February 2019.
13. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 214.
14. Bennett, C. H.; Brassard, G. (1984). "Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and
coin tossing". Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers, Systems & Signal
Processing, Bangalore, India. Vol. 1. New York: IEEE. pp. 175–179. Reprinted as Bennett, C.
H.; Brassard, G. (4 December 2014). "Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and
coin tossing" ([Link] Theoretical Computer Science.
Theoretical Aspects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84. 560 (1): 7–
11. arXiv:2003.06557 ([Link] Bibcode:2014TComS.560....7B (ht
tps://[Link]/abs/2014TComS.560....7B). doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.05.025 (http
s://[Link]/10.1016%[Link].2014.05.025).
15. Brassard, G. (2005). "Brief history of quantum cryptography: A personal perspective". IEEE
Information Theory Workshop on Theory and Practice in Information-Theoretic Security, 2005.
Awaji Island, Japan: IEEE. pp. 19–23. arXiv:quant-ph/0604072 ([Link]
ph/0604072). doi:10.1109/ITWTPI.2005.1543949 ([Link]
5.1543949). ISBN 978-0-7803-9491-9. S2CID 16118245 ([Link]
rpusID:16118245).
16. Deutsch, D. (8 July 1985). "Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal
quantum computer". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and
Physical Sciences. 400 (1818): 97–117. Bibcode:1985RSPSA.400...97D ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1985RSPSA.400...97D). doi:10.1098/rspa.1985.0070 ([Link]
8%2Frspa.1985.0070). ISSN 0080-4630 ([Link]
S2CID 1438116 ([Link]
17. Bernstein, Ethan; Vazirani, Umesh (1993). "Quantum complexity theory" ([Link]
[Link]/[Link]?doid=167088.167097). Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM
symposium on Theory of computing – STOC '93. San Diego, California, United States: ACM
Press. pp. 11–20. doi:10.1145/167088.167097 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-89791-591-5. S2CID 676378 ([Link]
8).
18. Simon, D. R. (1994). "On the power of quantum computation". Proceedings 35th Annual
Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA: IEEE Comput.
Soc. Press. pp. 116–123. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1994.365701 ([Link]
S.1994.365701). ISBN 978-0-8186-6580-6. S2CID 7457814 ([Link]
CorpusID:7457814).
19. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 30-32.
20. Shor, Peter W. (1994). Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and
Factoring. Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. Santa Fe, New Mexico: IEEE.
pp. 124–134. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700 ([Link]
0). ISBN 978-0-8186-6580-6.
21. Grover, Lov K. (1996). A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. ACM
symposium on Theory of computing. Philadelphia: ACM Press. pp. 212–219. arXiv:quant-
ph/9605043 ([Link] doi:10.1145/237814.237866 (http
s://[Link]/10.1145%2F237814.237866). ISBN 978-0-89791-785-8.
22. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 7.
23. Lloyd, Seth (23 August 1996). "Universal Quantum Simulators". Science. 273 (5278): 1073–
1078. Bibcode:1996Sci...273.1073L ([Link]
L). doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073 ([Link]
. ISSN 0036-8075 ([Link] PMID 8688088 ([Link]
[Link]/8688088). S2CID 43496899 ([Link]
sID:43496899).
24. Cao, Yudong; Romero, Jonathan; Olson, Jonathan P.; Degroote, Matthias; Johnson, Peter
D.; et al. (9 October 2019). "Quantum Chemistry in the Age of Quantum Computing".
Chemical Reviews. 119 (19): 10856–10915. arXiv:1812.09976 ([Link]
76). Bibcode:2019ChRv..11910856C ([Link]
56C). doi:10.1021/[Link].8b00803 ([Link]
3). ISSN 0009-2665 ([Link] PMID 31469277 (https://
[Link]/31469277). S2CID 119417908 ([Link]
orpusID:119417908).
25. Grumbling & Horowitz 2019, pp. 164–169.
26. Chuang, Isaac L.; Gershenfeld, Neil; Kubinec, Markdoi (April 1998). "Experimental
Implementation of Fast Quantum Searching". Physical Review Letters. 80 (15). American
Physical Society: 3408–3411. Bibcode:1998PhRvL..80.3408C ([Link]
u/abs/1998PhRvL..80.3408C). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.3408 ([Link]
3%2FPhysRevLett.80.3408).
27. Holton, William Coffeen. "quantum computer" ([Link]
uantum-computer). Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved
4 December 2021.
28. Gibney, Elizabeth (23 October 2019). "Hello quantum world! Google publishes landmark
quantum supremacy claim" ([Link] Nature. 574
(7779): 461–462. Bibcode:2019Natur.574..461G ([Link]
atur.574..461G). doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03213-z ([Link]
9-03213-z). PMID 31645740 ([Link]
29. Lay summary: Martinis, John; Boixo, Sergio (23 October 2019). "Quantum Supremacy
Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor" ([Link]
[Link]). Nature. 574 (7779). Google AI: 505–510.
arXiv:1910.11333 ([Link] Bibcode:2019Natur.574..505A (http
s://[Link]/abs/2019Natur.574..505A). doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 (http
s://[Link]/10.1038%2Fs41586-019-1666-5). PMID 31645734 ([Link]
[Link]/31645734). S2CID 204836822 ([Link]
2). Retrieved 27 April 2022.
• Journal article: Arute, Frank; Arya, Kunal; Babbush, Ryan; Bacon, Dave; Bardin, Joseph C.;
et al. (23 October 2019). "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting
processor". Nature. 574 (7779): 505–510. arXiv:1910.11333 ([Link]
33). Bibcode:2019Natur.574..505A ([Link]
A). doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 ([Link]
PMID 31645734 ([Link] S2CID 204836822 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:204836822).
30. Aaronson, Scott (30 October 2019). "Opinion | Why Google's Quantum Supremacy
Milestone Matters" ([Link]
[Link]). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 ([Link]
sn/0362-4331). Retrieved 25 September 2021.
31. Pan, Feng; Zhang, Pan (4 March 2021). "Simulating the Sycamore quantum supremacy
circuits". arXiv:2103.03074 ([Link] [quant-ph ([Link]
archive/quant-ph)].
32. Sample, Ian (23 October 2019). "Google claims it has achieved 'quantum supremacy' – but
IBM disagrees" ([Link]
has-achieved-quantum-supremacy-but-ibm-disagrees). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 (htt
ps://[Link]/issn/0261-3077). Retrieved 1 August 2025.
33. Bravyi (2024). "High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory" (http
s://[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC10972743). Nature. 627 (8005): 778–782.
arXiv:2308.07915 ([Link] Bibcode:2024Natur.627..778B (http
s://[Link]/abs/2024Natur.627..778B). doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7 (htt
ps://[Link]/10.1038%2Fs41586-024-07107-7). PMC 10972743 ([Link]
ov/pmc/articles/PMC10972743). PMID 38538939 ([Link]
939).
34. Fredkin, Edward; Toffoli, Tommaso (1982). "Conservative logic". International Journal of
Theoretical Physics. 21 (3–4): 219–253. Bibcode:1982IJTP...21..219F ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1982IJTP...21..219F). doi:10.1007/BF01857727 ([Link]
857727).
35. Arora, Sanjeev; Barak, Boaz (2009). Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach.
Cambridge University Press. pp. 123–125.
36. Bennett, Charlie (31 July 2020). Information Is Quantum: How Physics Helped Explain the
Nature of Information and What Can Be Done With It ([Link]
DK4&t=4102) (Videotape). Event occurs at 1:08:22 – via YouTube.
37. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 13.
38. Mermin 2007, p. 17.
39. Mermin 2007, p. 18.
40. Aaronson 2013, p. 110.
41. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 30–32.
42. Mermin 2007, pp. 38–39.
43. Kurgalin, Sergei; Borzunov, Sergei (2021). Concise guide to quantum computing: algorithms,
exercises, and implementations. Texts in computer science. Cham: Springer.
ISBN 978-3-030-65054-4.
44. Chi-Chih Yao, A. (1993). "Quantum circuit complexity". Proceedings of 1993 IEEE 34th Annual
Foundations of Computer Science. pp. 352–361. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1993.366852 ([Link]
[Link]/10.1109%2FSFCS.1993.366852). ISBN 0-8186-4370-6. S2CID 195866146 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:195866146).
45. Raussendorf, Robert; Browne, Daniel E.; Briegel, Hans J. (25 August 2003). "Measurement-
based quantum computation on cluster states". Physical Review A. 68 (2) 022312.
arXiv:quant-ph/0301052 ([Link]
Bibcode:2003PhRvA..68b2312R ([Link]
R). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022312 ([Link]
S2CID 6197709 ([Link]
46. Aharonov, Dorit; van Dam, Wim; Kempe, Julia; Landau, Zeph; Lloyd, Seth; Regev, Oded (1
January 2008). "Adiabatic Quantum Computation Is Equivalent to Standard Quantum
Computation". SIAM Review. 50 (4): 755–787. arXiv:quant-ph/0405098 ([Link]
s/quant-ph/0405098). Bibcode:2008SIAMR..50..755A ([Link]
008SIAMR..50..755A). doi:10.1137/080734479 ([Link]
ISSN 0036-1445 ([Link] S2CID 1503123 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:1503123).
47. Freedman, Michael H.; Larsen, Michael; Wang, Zhenghan (1 June 2002). "A Modular
Functor Which is Universal for Quantum Computation". Communications in Mathematical
Physics. 227 (3): 605–622. arXiv:quant-ph/0001108 ([Link]
8). Bibcode:2002CMaPh.227..605F ([Link]
5F). doi:10.1007/s002200200645 ([Link]
ISSN 0010-3616 ([Link] S2CID 8990600 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:8990600).
48. Das, A.; Chakrabarti, B. K. (2008). "Quantum Annealing and Analog Quantum
Computation". Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 (3): 1061–1081. arXiv:0801.2193 ([Link]
01.2193). Bibcode:2008RvMP...80.1061D ([Link]
0.1061D). CiteSeerX [Link].9990 ([Link]
[Link].9990). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1061 ([Link]
hys.80.1061). S2CID 14255125 ([Link]
49. Nayak, Chetan; Simon, Steven; Stern, Ady; Das Sarma, Sankar (2008). "Nonabelian Anyons
and Quantum Computation". Reviews of Modern Physics. 80 (3): 1083–1159.
arXiv:0707.1889 ([Link] Bibcode:2008RvMP...80.1083N (https://
[Link]/abs/2008RvMP...80.1083N). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083 (http
s://[Link]/10.1103%2FRevModPhys.80.1083). S2CID 119628297 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:119628297).
50. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 481.
51. Preskill, John (6 August 2018). "Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond" (http
s://[Link]/10.22331%2Fq-2018-08-06-79). Quantum. 2 79. arXiv:1801.00862 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1801.00862). Bibcode:2018Quant...2...79P ([Link]
018Quant...2...79P). doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 ([Link]
8-06-79). S2CID 44098998 ([Link]
52. Bluvstein, Dolev; Evered, Simon J.; Geim, Alexandra A.; Li, Sophie H.; Zhou, Hengyun;
Manovitz, Tom; Ebadi, Sepehr; Cain, Madelyn; Kalinowski, Marcin; Hangleiter, Dominik;
Ataides, J. Pablo Bonilla; Maskara, Nishad; Cong, Iris; Gao, Xun; Rodriguez, Pedro Sales (6
December 2023). "Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays" (http
s://[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC10830422). Nature. 626 (7997): 58–65.
arXiv:2312.03982 ([Link] doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3 (htt
ps://[Link]/10.1038%2Fs41586-023-06927-3). ISSN 1476-4687 ([Link]
g/issn/1476-4687). PMC 10830422 ([Link]
422). PMID 38056497 ([Link] S2CID 266052773 (htt
ps://[Link]/CorpusID:266052773).
53. "DARPA-Funded Research Leads to Quantum Computing Breakthrough" ([Link]
[Link]/news-events/2023-12-06). [Link]. 6 December 2023. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
54. Choudhury, Rizwan (30 December 2023). "Top 7 innovation stories of 2023 – Interesting
Engineering" ([Link]
teresting-engineering). [Link]. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
55. Pirandola, S.; Andersen, U. L.; Banchi, L.; Berta, M.; Bunandar, D.; Colbeck, R.; Englund, D.;
Gehring, T.; Lupo, C.; Ottaviani, C.; Pereira, J.; Razavi, M.; Shamsul Shaari, J.; Tomamichel,
M.; Usenko, V. C.; Vallone, G.; Villoresi, P.; Wallden, P. (2020). "Advances in quantum
cryptography". Advances in Optics and Photonics. 12 (4): 1012. arXiv:1906.01645 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1906.01645). Bibcode:2020AdOP...12.1012P ([Link]
s/2020AdOP...12.1012P). doi:10.1364/AOP.361502 ([Link]
2).
56. Xu, Feihu; Ma, Xiongfeng; Zhang, Qiang; Lo, Hoi-Kwong; Pan, Jian-Wei (26 May 2020).
"Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices". Reviews of Modern Physics. 92 (2):
025002-3. arXiv:1903.09051 ([Link]
Bibcode:2020RvMP...92b5002X ([Link]
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.92.025002 ([Link]
S2CID 210942877 ([Link]
57. Xu, Guobin; Mao, Jianzhou; Sakk, Eric; Wang, Shuangbao Paul (22 March 2023). "An
Overview of Quantum-Safe Approaches: Quantum Key Distribution and Post-Quantum
Cryptography". 2023 57th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems (CISS).
IEEE. p. 3. doi:10.1109/CISS56502.2023.10089619 ([Link]
023.10089619). ISBN 978-1-6654-5181-9.
58. Kozlowski, Wojciech; Wehner, Stephanie (25 September 2019). "Towards Large-Scale
Quantum Networks". Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM International Conference on
Nanoscale Computing and Communication. ACM. pp. 1–7. arXiv:1909.08396 ([Link]
g/abs/1909.08396). doi:10.1145/3345312.3345497 ([Link]
45497). ISBN 978-1-4503-6897-1.
59. Guo, Xueshi; Breum, Casper R.; Borregaard, Johannes; Izumi, Shuro; Larsen, Mikkel V.;
Gehring, Tobias; Christandl, Matthias; Neergaard-Nielsen, Jonas S.; Andersen, Ulrik L. (23
December 2019). "Distributed quantum sensing in a continuous-variable entangled
network". Nature Physics. 16 (3): 281–284. arXiv:1905.09408 ([Link]
408). doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0743-x ([Link]
ISSN 1745-2473 ([Link] S2CID 256703226 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:256703226).
60. Jordan, Stephen (14 October 2022) [22 April 2011]. "Quantum Algorithm Zoo" ([Link]
[Link]/quantum/zoo/). Archived ([Link]
s://[Link]/quantum/zoo/) from the original on 29 April 2018.
61. Aaronson, Scott; Arkhipov, Alex (6 June 2011). "The computational complexity of linear
optics". Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. San
Jose, California: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 333–342. arXiv:1011.3245 (http
s://[Link]/abs/1011.3245). doi:10.1145/1993636.1993682 ([Link]
993636.1993682). ISBN 978-1-4503-0691-1.
62. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 42.
63. Preskill 2018.
64. Norton, Quinn (15 February 2007). "The Father of Quantum Computing" ([Link]
[Link]/science/discoveries/news/2007/02/72734). Wired.
65. Weidman, Jared D.; Sajjan, Manas; Mikolas, Camille; Stewart, Zachary J.; Pollanen,
Johannes; Kais, Sabre; Wilson, Angela K. (18 September 2024). "Quantum computing and
chemistry" ([Link] Cell Reports Physical Science. 5
(9) 102105. Bibcode:2024CRPS....502105W ([Link]
S....502105W). doi:10.1016/[Link].2024.102105 ([Link]
105).
66. Ambainis, Andris (Spring 2014). "What Can We Do with a Quantum Computer?" ([Link]
[Link]/ias-letter/ambainis-quantum-computing). Institute for Advanced Study.
67. Chang, Kenneth (14 June 2023). "Quantum Computing Advance Begins New Era, IBM Says
– A quantum computer came up with better answers to a physics problem than a
conventional supercomputer" ([Link]
[Link]). The New York Times. Retrieved 15 June 2023.
68. Kim, Youngseok; et al. (14 June 2023). "Evidence for the utility of quantum computing
before fault tolerance" ([Link]
Nature. 618 (7965): 500–505. Bibcode:2023Natur.618..500K ([Link]
abs/2023Natur.618..500K). doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06096-3 ([Link]
41586-023-06096-3). PMC 10266970 ([Link]
6970). PMID 37316724 ([Link]
69. Morello, Andrea (21 November 2018). Lunch & Learn: Quantum Computing ([Link]
[Link]/web/20210215140237/[Link] Sibos
TV. Archived from the original on 15 February 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2021 – via
YouTube.
70. Ruane, Jonathan; McAfee, Andrew; Oliver, William D. (1 January 2022). "Quantum
Computing for Business Leaders" ([Link]
ess-leaders). Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012 ([Link]
17-8012). Retrieved 12 April 2023.
71. Budde, Florian; Volz, Daniel (12 July 2019). "Quantum computing and the chemical
industry | McKinsey" ([Link]
ext-big-thing-quantum-computings-potential-impact-on-chemicals). [Link].
McKinsey and Company. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
72. Bourzac, Katherine (30 October 2017). "Chemistry is quantum computing's killer app" (htt
ps://[Link]/articles/95/i43/[Link]).
[Link]. American Chemical Society. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
73. Gisin, Nicolas; Ribordy, Grégoire; Tittel, Wolfgang; Zbinden, Hugo (8 March 2002).
"Quantum cryptography" ([Link] Reviews
of Modern Physics. 74 (1): 145–195. arXiv:quant-ph/0101098 ([Link]
h/0101098). Bibcode:2002RvMP...74..145G ([Link]
P...74..145G). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145 ([Link]
4.145). ISSN 0034-6861 ([Link]
74. Lenstra, Arjen K. (2000). "Integer Factoring" ([Link]
9/[Link] (PDF).
Designs, Codes and Cryptography. 19 (2/3): 101–128. doi:10.1023/A:1008397921377 (https://
[Link]/10.1023%2FA%3A1008397921377). S2CID 9816153 ([Link]
g/CorpusID:9816153). Archived from the original ([Link]
u/124/misc/arjen_lenstra_factoring.pdf) (PDF) on 10 April 2015.
75. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 216.
76. Bernstein, Daniel J. (2009). "Introduction to post-quantum cryptography". Post-Quantum
Cryptography. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 1–14. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88702-7_1 (htt
ps://[Link]/10.1007%2F978-3-540-88702-7_1). ISBN 978-3-540-88701-0. S2CID 61401925
([Link]
77. See also [Link] ([Link] a bibliography maintained by Daniel J.
Bernstein and Tanja Lange on cryptography not known to be broken by quantum
computing.
78. McEliece, R. J. (January 1978). "A Public-Key Cryptosystem Based On Algebraic Coding
Theory" ([Link] (PDF). DSNPR. 44:
114–116. Bibcode:1978DSNPR..44..114M ([Link]
R..44..114M).
79. Kobayashi, H.; Gall, F. L. (2006). "Dihedral Hidden Subgroup Problem: A Survey" ([Link]
[Link]/10.2197%2Fipsjdc.1.470). Information and Media Technologies. 1 (1): 178–185.
doi:10.2197/ipsjdc.1.470 ([Link]
80. Bennett, Charles H.; Bernstein, Ethan; Brassard, Gilles; Vazirani, Umesh (October 1997).
"Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing". SIAM Journal on Computing. 26 (5):
1510–1523. arXiv:quant-ph/9701001 ([Link]
Bibcode:[Link]..1001B ([Link]
doi:10.1137/s0097539796300933 ([Link]
S2CID 13403194 ([Link]
81. Brassard, Gilles; Høyer, Peter; Tapp, Alain (2016). "Quantum Algorithm for the Collision
Problem". In Kao, Ming-Yang (ed.). Encyclopedia of Algorithms. New York, New York:
Springer. pp. 1662–1664. arXiv:quant-ph/9705002 ([Link]
2). doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2864-4_304 ([Link]
4). ISBN 978-1-4939-2864-4. S2CID 3116149 ([Link]
16149).
82. Farhi, Edward; Goldstone, Jeffrey; Gutmann, Sam (23 December 2008). "A Quantum
Algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND Tree" ([Link]
8). Theory of Computing. 4 (1): 169–190. doi:10.4086/toc.2008.v004a008 ([Link]
0.4086%2Ftoc.2008.v004a008). ISSN 1557-2862 ([Link]
62). S2CID 8258191 ([Link]
83. Williams, Colin P. (2011). Explorations in Quantum Computing. Springer. pp. 242–244.
ISBN 978-1-84628-887-6.
84. Grover, Lov (29 May 1996). "A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search".
arXiv:quant-ph/9605043 ([Link]
85. Ambainis, Ambainis (June 2004). "Quantum search algorithms". ACM SIGACT News. 35 (2):
22–35. arXiv:quant-ph/0504012 ([Link]
Bibcode:[Link]..4012A ([Link]
doi:10.1145/992287.992296 ([Link] S2CID 11326499
([Link]
86. Rich, Steven; Gellman, Barton (1 February 2014). "NSA seeks to build quantum computer
that could crack most types of encryption" ([Link]
nal-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encry
ption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html). The Washington
Post.
87. Lucas, Andrew (2014). "Ising formulations of many NP problems" ([Link]
9%2Ffphy.2014.00005). Frontiers in Physics. 2: 5. arXiv:1302.5843 ([Link]
2.5843). Bibcode:2014FrP.....2....5L ([Link]
doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 ([Link]
88. Outeiral, Carlos; Strahm, Martin; Morris, Garrett; Benjamin, Simon; Deane, Charlotte; Shi,
Jiye (2021). "The prospects of quantum computing in computational molecular biology" (h
ttps://[Link]/10.1002%2Fwcms.1481). WIREs Computational Molecular Science. 11 e1481.
arXiv:2005.12792 ([Link] doi:10.1002/wcms.1481 ([Link]
[Link]/10.1002%2Fwcms.1481). S2CID 218889377 ([Link]
D:218889377).
89. Biamonte, Jacob; Wittek, Peter; Pancotti, Nicola; Rebentrost, Patrick; Wiebe, Nathan;
Lloyd, Seth (September 2017). "Quantum machine learning". Nature. 549 (7671): 195–202.
arXiv:1611.09347 ([Link] Bibcode:2017Natur.549..195B (http
s://[Link]/abs/2017Natur.549..195B). doi:10.1038/nature23474 ([Link]
[Link]/10.1038%2Fnature23474). ISSN 0028-0836 ([Link]
36). PMID 28905917 ([Link] S2CID 64536201 (http
s://[Link]/CorpusID:64536201).
90. Wang, Yuxuan; Xue, Zhaohui; Yuan, Jie; Zhao, Yijia; Li, Yuan; Wu, Yonghao; Pan, Jian-Wei
(2024). "A comprehensive review of quantum machine learning" ([Link]
[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC12869772). Fundamental Research. 5 (2): 378–417. doi:10.1016/
[Link].2024.01.008 ([Link] PMC 12869772 (http
s://[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC12869772). PMID 41647569 ([Link]
[Link]/41647569).
91. Jerbi, Sofiene; Gyurik, Casper; Marshall, Simon C.; Molteni, Riccardo; Dunjko, Vedran (6
July 2024). "Shadows of quantum machine learning" ([Link]
rticles/PMC11227511). Nature Communications. 15 (1) 5676. arXiv:2306.00061 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2306.00061). Bibcode:2024NatCo..15.5676J ([Link]
s/2024NatCo..15.5676J). doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49877-8 ([Link]
467-024-49877-8). hdl:1887/4170178 ([Link]
PMC 11227511 ([Link]
PMID 38971826 ([Link]
92. Harrow, Aram; Hassidim, Avinatan; Lloyd, Seth (2009). "Quantum algorithm for solving
linear systems of equations". Physical Review Letters. 103 (15) 150502. arXiv:0811.3171 (htt
ps://[Link]/abs/0811.3171). Bibcode:2009PhRvL.103o0502H ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2009PhRvL.103o0502H). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502 ([Link]
g/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.103.150502). PMID 19905613 ([Link]
v/19905613). S2CID 5187993 ([Link]
 93. Benedetti, Marcello; Realpe-Gómez, John; Biswas, Rupak; Perdomo-Ortiz, Alejandro (9
August 2016). "Estimation of effective temperatures in quantum annealers for sampling
applications: A case study with possible applications in deep learning" ([Link]
0.1103%2FPhysRevA.94.022308). Physical Review A. 94 (2) 022308. arXiv:1510.07611 (http
s://[Link]/abs/1510.07611). Bibcode:2016PhRvA..94b2308B ([Link]
du/abs/2016PhRvA..94b2308B). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022308 ([Link]
3%2FPhysRevA.94.022308).
94. Ajagekar, Akshay; You, Fengqi (5 December 2020). "Quantum computing assisted deep
learning for fault detection and diagnosis in industrial process systems". Computers &
Chemical Engineering. 143 107119. arXiv:2003.00264 ([Link]
doi:10.1016/[Link].2020.107119 ([Link]
20.107119). ISSN 0098-1354 ([Link]
S2CID 211678230 ([Link]
95. Ajagekar, Akshay; You, Fengqi (1 December 2021). "Quantum computing based hybrid
deep learning for fault diagnosis in electrical power systems" ([Link]
[Link].2021.117628). Applied Energy. 303 117628. Bibcode:2021ApEn..30317628A (http
s://[Link]/abs/2021ApEn..30317628A). doi:10.1016/
[Link].2021.117628 ([Link]
ISSN 0306-2619 ([Link]
96. Fedichev, Peter; Pyrkov, Timothy; Krylov, Ivan (2023). "Quantum machine learning for
drug discovery" ([Link] Scientific
Reports. 13 (1): 8250. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32703-4 ([Link]
8-023-32703-4). PMC 10201520 ([Link]
0). PMID 37217521 ([Link]
97. Borfitz, Deborah (22 August 2023). "Gero Taps Quantum Computing and AI To Tackle
Diseases Of Aging" ([Link]
omputing-and-ai-to-tackle-diseases-of-aging). Bio-IT World.
98. Gao, Xun; Anschuetz, Eric R.; Wang, Sheng-Tao; Cirac, J. Ignacio; Lukin, Mikhail D. (2022).
"Enhancing Generative Models via Quantum Correlations". Physical Review X. 12 (2)
021037. arXiv:2101.08354 ([Link]
Bibcode:2022PhRvX..12b1037G ([Link]
G). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.12.021037 ([Link]
S2CID 231662294 ([Link]
99. Li, Junde; Topaloglu, Rasit; Ghosh, Swaroop (9 January 2021). "Quantum Generative
Models for Small Molecule Drug Discovery". IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering. 2:
1–8. arXiv:2101.03438 ([Link] Bibcode:2021ITQE....2E4804L (ht
tps://[Link]/abs/2021ITQE....2E4804L). doi:10.1109/TQE.2021.3104804 (htt
ps://[Link]/10.1109%2FTQE.2021.3104804).
100. Novikov, Alexander; et al. (16 June 2025). "AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and
algorithmic discovery". arXiv:2506.13131 ([Link] [[Link] (https://
[Link]/archive/[Link])].
101. Zhang, C.; et al. (22 October 2025). "Quantum computation of molecular geometry via
many-body nuclear spin echoes". arXiv:2510.19550 ([Link]
[quant-ph ([Link]
102. Brooks, Michael (24 May 2023). "Quantum computers: what are they good for?" ([Link]
[Link]/10.1038%2Fd41586-023-01692-9). Nature. 617 (7962): S1–S3.
Bibcode:2023Natur.617S...1B ([Link]
doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01692-9 ([Link]
PMID 37225885 ([Link] S2CID 258847001 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:258847001).
103. Torsten Hoefler; Thomas Häner; Matthias Troyer (May 2023). "Disentangling Hype from
Practicality: On Realistically Achieving Quantum Advantage" ([Link]
gazines/2023/5/272276-disentangling-hype-from-practicality-on-realistically-achieving-qu
antum-advantage/fulltext). Communications of the ACM.
104. Dyakonov, Mikhail (15 November 2018). "The Case Against Quantum Computing" (https://
[Link]/the-case-against-quantum-computing). IEEE Spectrum.
105. DiVincenzo, David P. (13 April 2000). "The Physical Implementation of Quantum
Computation". Fortschritte der Physik. 48 (9–11): 771–783. arXiv:quant-ph/0002077 (https://
[Link]/abs/quant-ph/0002077). Bibcode:2000ForPh..48..771D ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2000ForPh..48..771D). doi:10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11<771::AID-
PROP771>[Link];2-E ([Link]
1%3C771%3A%3AAID-PROP771%[Link]%3B2-E). S2CID 15439711 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:15439711).
106. Pauka SJ, Das K, Kalra B, Moini A, Yang Y, Trainer M, Bousquet A, Cantaloube C, Dick N,
Gardner GC, Manfra MJ, Reilly DJ (2021). "A cryogenic CMOS chip for generating control
signals for multiple qubits" ([Link] Nature
Electronics. 4 (4): 64–70. arXiv:1912.01299 ([Link] doi:10.1038/
s41928-020-00528-y ([Link] S2CID 231715555
([Link]
107. "Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization" ([Link]
m-cryptography/post-quantum-cryptography-standardization). NIST (National Institute of
Standards and Technology). 3 January 2017.
108. Giles, Martin (17 January 2019). "We'd have more quantum computers if it weren't so hard
to find the damn cables" ([Link]
ers-component-shortage/). MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 May 2021.
109. "A rare earth 'China solution' that leaves US defence agency in the cold" ([Link]
[Link]/news/china/science/article/3346452/chinese-scientists-create-worlds-coldest-alloy-
it-may-surprise-darpa). South China Morning Post. 17 March 2026. Retrieved 14 April 2026.
110. DiVincenzo, David P. (1995). "Quantum Computation". Science. 270 (5234): 255–261.
Bibcode:1995Sci...270..255D ([Link]
CiteSeerX [Link].2165 ([Link]
2.2165). doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.255 ([Link]
55). S2CID 220110562 ([Link]
111. Zu, H.; Dai, W.; de Waele, A.T.A.M. (2022). "Development of Dilution refrigerators – A
review". Cryogenics. 121. doi:10.1016/[Link].2021.103390 ([Link]
[Link].2021.103390). ISSN 0011-2275 ([Link]
S2CID 244005391 ([Link]
112. Jones, Nicola (19 June 2013). "Computing: The quantum company" ([Link]
8%2F498286a). Nature. 498 (7454): 286–288. Bibcode:2013Natur.498..286J ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2013Natur.498..286J). doi:10.1038/498286a ([Link]
F498286a). PMID 23783610 ([Link]
113. Vepsäläinen, Antti P.; Karamlou, Amir H.; Orrell, John L.; Dogra, Akshunna S.; Loer, Ben;
et al. (August 2020). "Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence" (h
ttps://[Link]/articles/s41586-020-2619-8). Nature. 584 (7822): 551–556.
arXiv:2001.09190 ([Link] Bibcode:2020Natur.584..551V (http
s://[Link]/abs/2020Natur.584..551V). doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8 (http
s://[Link]/10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2619-8). ISSN 1476-4687 ([Link]
ssn/1476-4687). PMID 32848227 ([Link]
S2CID 210920566 ([Link]
114. Amy, Matthew; Matteo, Olivia; Gheorghiu, Vlad; Mosca, Michele; Parent, Alex; Schanck,
John (30 November 2016). "Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on
SHA-2 and SHA-3". arXiv:1603.09383 ([Link] [quant-ph (https://
[Link]/archive/quant-ph)].
115. Dyakonov, M. I. (14 October 2006). S. Luryi; Xu, J.; Zaslavsky, A. (eds.). "Is Fault-Tolerant
Quantum Computation Really Possible?". Future Trends in Microelectronics. Up the Nano
Creek: 4–18. arXiv:quant-ph/0610117 ([Link]
Bibcode:[Link].10117D ([Link]
.
116. Ahsan, Muhammad (2015). Architecture Framework for Trapped-ion Quantum Computer
based on Performance Simulation Tool. Bibcode:2015PhDT........56A ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2015PhDT........56A). OCLC 923881411 ([Link]
411).
117. Ahsan, Muhammad; Meter, Rodney Van; Kim, Jungsang (28 December 2016). "Designing a
Million-Qubit Quantum Computer Using a Resource Performance Simulator" ([Link]
[Link]/10.1145%2F2830570). ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems. 12
(4): 39:1–39:25. arXiv:1512.00796 ([Link] doi:10.1145/2830570
([Link] ISSN 1550-4832 ([Link]
550-4832). S2CID 1258374 ([Link]
118. Gidney, Craig; Ekerå, Martin (15 April 2021). "How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8
hours using 20 million noisy qubits". Quantum. 5 433. arXiv:1905.09749 ([Link]
abs/1905.09749). Bibcode:2021Quant...5..433G ([Link]
uant...5..433G). doi:10.22331/q-2021-04-15-433 ([Link]
5-433). ISSN 2521-327X ([Link] S2CID 162183806 (h
ttps://[Link]/CorpusID:162183806).
119. Ruiz, Diego; Guillaud, Jérémie; Leverrier, Anthony; Mirrahimi, Mazyar; Vuillot, Christophe
(26 January 2025). "LDPC-cat codes for low-overhead quantum computing in 2D" (https://
[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC11762751). Nature Communications. 16 (1) 1040.
arXiv:2401.09541 ([Link] Bibcode:2025NatCo..16.1040R (http
s://[Link]/abs/2025NatCo..16.1040R). doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56298-8 (ht
tps://[Link]/10.1038%2Fs41467-025-56298-8). ISSN 2041-1723 ([Link]
rg/issn/2041-1723). PMC 11762751 ([Link]
2751). PMID 39863608 ([Link]
120. Freedman, Michael H.; Kitaev, Alexei; Larsen, Michael J.; Wang, Zhenghan (2003).
"Topological quantum computation". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 40 (1):
31–38. arXiv:quant-ph/0101025 ([Link] doi:10.1090/
S0273-0979-02-00964-3 ([Link] MR 1943131
([Link]
121. Monroe, Don (1 October 2008). "Anyons: The breakthrough quantum computing needs?"
([Link]
[Link]). New Scientist.
122. Cossins, Daniel (28 June 2025). "How to think about...Quasiparticles". New Scientist. 266
(3549): 34. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(25)01046-2 ([Link]
825%2901046-2).
123. Main, D.; Drmota, P.; Nadlinger, D. P.; Ainley, E. M.; Agrawal, A.; Nichol, B. C.; Srinivas, R.;
Araneda, G.; Lucas, D. M. (2025). "Distributed quantum computing across an optical
network link" ([Link] Nature. 638
(8050): 383–388. arXiv:2407.00835 ([Link]
Bibcode:2025Natur.638..383M ([Link]
doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08404-x ([Link]
PMC 11821536 ([Link]
PMID 39910308 ([Link]
124. "First distributed quantum algorithm brings quantum supercomputers closer" ([Link]
[Link]/news/2025-02-06-first-distributed-quantum-algorithm-brings-quantum-supe
rcomputers-closer). University of Oxford. 6 February 2025. Retrieved 2 July 2026.
125. Iuliano, M.; et al. (2026). "Unconditionally teleported quantum gates between remote
solid-state qubit registers" ([Link]
Nature Communications. 17 (1) 4694. arXiv:2601.04848 ([Link]
Bibcode:2026NatCo..17.4694I ([Link]
doi:10.1038/s41467-026-72818-6 ([Link]
PMC 13212882 ([Link]
PMID 42191685 ([Link]
126. Knörzer, J; Liu, X; Schiffer, B F; Tura, J (1 July 2026). "Distributed quantum information
processing: a review of recent progress". Reports on Progress in Physics. 89 (7): 074401.
doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ae74e0 ([Link]
ISSN 0034-4885 ([Link] PMID 42214383 ([Link]
[Link]/42214383).
127. Preskill, John (26 March 2012). "Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier".
arXiv:1203.5813 ([Link] [quant-ph ([Link]
nt-ph)].
128. Boixo, Sergio; Isakov, Sergei V.; Smelyanskiy, Vadim N.; Babbush, Ryan; Ding, Nan; et al.
(2018). "Characterizing Quantum Supremacy in Near-Term Devices". Nature Physics. 14 (6):
595–600. arXiv:1608.00263 ([Link]
Bibcode:2018NatPh..14..595B ([Link]
doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0124-x ([Link]
S2CID 4167494 ([Link]
129. Savage, Neil (5 July 2017). "Quantum Computers Compete for "Supremacy" " ([Link]
[Link]fi[Link]/article/quantum-computers-compete-for-supremacy/). Scientific
American.
130. Giles, Martin (20 September 2019). "Google researchers have reportedly achieved
'quantum supremacy' " ([Link]
s-have-reportedly-achieved-quantum-supremacy/). MIT Technology Review. Retrieved
15 May 2020.
131. Tavares, Frank (23 October 2019). "Google and NASA Achieve Quantum Supremacy" (http
s://[Link]/feature/ames/quantum-supremacy). NASA. Retrieved 16 November
2021.
132. Pednault, Edwin; Gunnels, John A.; Nannicini, Giacomo; Horesh, Lior; Wisnieff, Robert (22
October 2019). "Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore
Circuits". arXiv:1910.09534 ([Link] [quant-ph ([Link]
archive/quant-ph)].
133. Cho, Adrian (23 October 2019). "IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum
supremacy" ([Link]
antum-supremacy). Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaz6080 ([Link]
nce.aaz6080). ISSN 0036-8075 ([Link]
S2CID 211982610 ([Link]
134. Liu, Yong (Alexander); Liu, Xin (Lucy); Li, Fang (Nancy); Fu, Haohuan; Yang, Yuling; et al. (14
November 2021). "Closing the "quantum supremacy" gap". Proceedings of the International
Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. SC '21. New
York, New York: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1–12. arXiv:2110.14502 (http
s://[Link]/abs/2110.14502). doi:10.1145/3458817.3487399 ([Link]
3458817.3487399). ISBN 978-1-4503-8442-1. S2CID 239036985 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:239036985).
135. Bulmer, Jacob F. F.; Bell, Bryn A.; Chadwick, Rachel S.; Jones, Alex E.; Moise, Diana; et al. (28
January 2022). "The boundary for quantum advantage in Gaussian boson sampling" (http
s://[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC8791606). Science Advances. 8 (4) eabl9236.
arXiv:2108.01622 ([Link] Bibcode:2022SciA....8.9236B (https://
[Link]/abs/2022SciA....8.9236B). doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl9236 ([Link]
rg/10.1126%2Fsciadv.abl9236). ISSN 2375-2548 ([Link]
48). PMC 8791606 ([Link]
PMID 35080972 ([Link]
136. McCormick, Katie (10 February 2022). "Race Not Over Between Classical and Quantum
Computers" ([Link] Physics. 15 19.
Bibcode:2022PhyOJ..15...19M ([Link]
doi:10.1103/Physics.15.19 ([Link] S2CID 246910085 (h
ttps://[Link]/CorpusID:246910085).
137. Pan, Feng; Chen, Keyang; Zhang, Pan (2022). "Solving the Sampling Problem of the
Sycamore Quantum Circuits". Physical Review Letters. 129 (9) 090502. arXiv:2111.03011 (htt
ps://[Link]/abs/2111.03011). Bibcode:2022PhRvL.129i0502P ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2022PhRvL.129i0502P). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.090502 ([Link]
0.1103%2FPhysRevLett.129.090502). PMID 36083655 ([Link]
6083655). S2CID 251755796 ([Link]
138. Cho, Adrian (2 August 2022). "Ordinary computers can beat Google's quantum computer
after all" ([Link]
quantum-computer-after-all). Science. 377. doi:10.1126/science.ade2364 ([Link]
0.1126%2Fscience.ade2364).
139. "Google's 'quantum supremacy' usurped by researchers using ordinary supercomputer"
([Link]
rs-using-ordinary-supercomputer/). TechCrunch. 5 August 2022. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
140. Ball, Philip (3 December 2020). "Physicists in China challenge Google's 'quantum
advantage' ". Nature. 588 (7838): 380. Bibcode:2020Natur.588..380B ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2020Natur.588..380B). doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03434-7 ([Link]
0.1038%2Fd41586-020-03434-7). PMID 33273711 ([Link]
711). S2CID 227282052 ([Link]
141. Garisto, Daniel. "Light-based Quantum Computer Exceeds Fastest Classical
Supercomputers" ([Link]
uter-exceeds-fastest-classical-supercomputers/). Scientific American. Retrieved
7 December 2020.
142. Conover, Emily (3 December 2020). "The new light-based quantum computer Jiuzhang has
achieved quantum supremacy" ([Link]
antum-computer-jiuzhang-supremacy). Science News. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
143. Zhong, Han-Sen; Wang, Hui; Deng, Yu-Hao; Chen, Ming-Cheng; Peng, Li-Chao; et al. (3
December 2020). "Quantum computational advantage using photons". Science. 370
(6523): 1460–1463. arXiv:2012.01625 ([Link]
Bibcode:2020Sci...370.1460Z ([Link]
doi:10.1126/science.abe8770 ([Link]
ISSN 0036-8075 ([Link] PMID 33273064 ([Link]
[Link]/33273064). S2CID 227254333 ([Link]
pusID:227254333).
144. Roberson, Tara M. (21 May 2020). "Can Hype Be a Force for Good?" ([Link]
7%2F0963662520923109). Public Understanding of Science. 29 (5): 544–552.
doi:10.1177/0963662520923109 ([Link]
ISSN 0963-6625 ([Link] PMID 32438851 ([Link]
[Link]/32438851). S2CID 218831653 ([Link]
pusID:218831653).
145. Cavaliere, Fabio; Mattsson, John; Smeets, Ben (September 2020). "The security
implications of quantum cryptography and quantum computing" ([Link]
[Link]/doi/10.1016/S1353-4858%2820%2930105-7). Network Security. 2020 (9): 9–15.
doi:10.1016/S1353-4858(20)30105-7 ([Link]
105-7). ISSN 1353-4858 ([Link] S2CID 222349414 (h
ttps://[Link]/CorpusID:222349414).
146. Liu, Yong; Chen, Yaojian; Guo, Chu; Song, Jiawei; Shi, Xinmin; Gan, Lin; Wu, Wenzhao; Wu,
Wei; Fu, Haohuan; Liu, Xin; Chen, Dexun; Zhao, Zhifeng; Yang, Guangwen; Gao, Jiangang
(16 January 2024). "Verifying Quantum Advantage Experiments with Multiple Amplitude
Tensor Network Contraction" ([Link]
Physical Review Letters. 132 (3) 030601. arXiv:2212.04749 ([Link]
9). Bibcode:2024PhRvL.132c0601L ([Link]
1L). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.030601 ([Link]
0601). ISSN 0031-9007 ([Link] PMID 38307065 (http
s://[Link]/38307065).
147. Monroe, Don (December 2022). "Quantum Computers and the Universe" ([Link]
[Link]/magazines/2022/12/266916-quantum-computers-and-the-universe/fulltext).
Communications of the ACM.
148. Swayne, Matt (20 June 2023). "PsiQuantum Sees 700x Reduction in Computational
Resource Requirements to Break Elliptic Curve Cryptography With a Fault Tolerant
Quantum Computer" ([Link]
x-reduction-in-computational-resource-requirements-to-break-elliptic-curve-cryptograph
y-with-a-fault-tolerant-quantum-computer/). The Quanrum Insider.
149. Unruh, Bill (1995). "Maintaining coherence in Quantum Computers". Physical Review A. 51
(2): 992–997. arXiv:hep-th/9406058 ([Link]
Bibcode:1995PhRvA..51..992U ([Link]
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.992 ([Link]
PMID 9911677 ([Link] S2CID 13980886 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:13980886).
150. Davies, Paul (6 March 2007). "The implications of a holographic universe for quantum
information science and the nature of physical law". arXiv:quant-ph/0703041 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/quant-ph/0703041).
151. Regan, K. W. (23 April 2016). "Quantum Supremacy and Complexity" ([Link]
[Link]/2016/04/22/quantum-supremacy-and-complexity/). Gödel's Lost Letter and
P=NP.
152. Kalai, Gil (May 2016). "The Quantum Computer Puzzle" ([Link]
ices/201605/[Link]) (PDF). Notices of the AMS. 63 (5): 508–516.
153. Rinott, Yosef; Shoham, Tomer; Kalai, Gil (13 July 2021). "Statistical Aspects of the Quantum
Supremacy Demonstration". arXiv:2008.05177 ([Link] [quant-
ph ([Link]
154. Dyakonov, Mikhail (15 November 2018). "The Case Against Quantum Computing" (https://
[Link]/the-case-against-quantum-computing). IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved
3 December 2019.
155. Russell, John (10 January 2019). "IBM Quantum Update: Q System One Launch, New
Collaborators, and QC Center Plans" ([Link]
m-update-q-system-one-launch-new-collaborators-and-qc-center-plans/). HPCwire.
Retrieved 9 January 2023.
156. Tacchino, Francesco; Chiesa, Alessandro; Carretta, Stefano; Gerace, Dario (19 December
2019). "Quantum Computers as Universal Quantum Simulators: State-of-the-Art and
Perspectives" ([Link] Advanced
Quantum Technologies. 3 (3) 1900052. arXiv:1907.03505 ([Link]
doi:10.1002/qute.201900052 ([Link]
ISSN 2511-9044 ([Link] S2CID 195833616 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:195833616).
157. Grumbling & Horowitz 2019, p. 127.
158. Grumbling & Horowitz 2019, p. 114.
159. Nayak, Chetan; Simon, Steven H.; Stern, Ady; Freedman, Michael; Das Sarma, Sankar (12
September 2008). "Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation" ([Link]
[Link]/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083). Reviews of Modern Physics. 80
(3): 1083–1159. arXiv:0707.1889 ([Link]
Bibcode:2008RvMP...80.1083N ([Link]
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083 ([Link]
160. Grumbling & Horowitz 2019, p. 119.
161. Grumbling & Horowitz 2019, p. 126.
162. "Scientists achieve breakthrough on quantum signaling" ([Link]
es/2025/12/quantum-communication-room-temperature-breakthrough-research).
Stanford Report. Stanford University. 1 December 2025. Retrieved 8 January 2026.
163. Pan, F.; Liu, F.; Heinz, T. F.; Dionne, J. A. (2025). "Room-temperature spin–photon interface
in a molybdenum diselenide–silicon nanostructured device". Nature Communications.
164. "Room-Temperature Device Advances Quantum Communication" ([Link]
[Link]/quantum-communication-molybdenum-diselenide-quantum-device/). Quantum
Zeitgeist. 2 December 2025. Retrieved 8 January 2026.
165. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 29.
166. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 126.
167. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 41.
168. Nielsen & Chuang 2010, p. 201.
169. Bernstein, Ethan; Vazirani, Umesh (1997). "Quantum Complexity Theory" ([Link]
[Link]/~vazirani/[Link]). SIAM Journal on Computing. 26 (5): 1411–1473.
CiteSeerX [Link].7852 ([Link]
4.7852). doi:10.1137/S0097539796300921 ([Link]
1).
170. "Hanyuan No. 1 Becomes China's First Commercial Quantum Computer" ([Link]
[Link]/2025/11/02/chinese-report-neutral-atom-quantum-computer-enters-com
mercial-use/). The Quantum Insider. 2 November 2025. Retrieved 21 May 2026.
171. "IBM Unveils World's First Integrated Quantum Computing System for Commercial Use"
([Link]
ystem-for-commercial-use) (Press release). IBM. 8 January 2019. Retrieved 21 May 2026.
172. Zhong, Han-Sen (2020). "Quantum computational advantage using photons". Science. 370
(6523): 1460–1463. arXiv:2012.01625 ([Link]
Bibcode:2020Sci...370.1460Z ([Link]
doi:10.1126/science.abe8770 ([Link]
PMID 33273064 ([Link]
173. "QpiAI Launches 25-Qubit Superconducting Quantum System in India" ([Link]
[Link]/off-the-wire/qpiai-launches-25-qubit-superconducting-quantum-system-in-india/).
HPCwire. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 21 May 2026.

Sources
▪ Aaronson, Scott (2013). Quantum Computing Since Democritus. Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511979309 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-521-19956-8. OCLC 829706638 ([Link]
▪ Grumbling, Emily; Horowitz, Mark, eds. (2019). Quantum Computing: Progress and
Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25196 ([Link]
[Link]/10.17226%2F25196). ISBN 978-0-309-47970-7. OCLC 1091904777 ([Link]
 [Link]/oclc/1091904777). S2CID 125635007 ([Link]
D:125635007).
▪ Mermin, N. David (2007). Quantum Computer Science: An Introduction. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511813870 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-511-34258-5. OCLC 422727925 ([Link]
▪ Nielsen, Michael; Chuang, Isaac (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
(10th anniversary ed.). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667 ([Link]
780511976667). ISBN 978-0-511-99277-3. OCLC 700706156 ([Link]
clc/700706156). S2CID 59717455 ([Link]

Further reading

Textbooks
▪ Benenti, Giuliano; Casati, Giulio; Rossini, Davide; Strini, Giuliano (2019). Principles of
Quantum Computation and Information: A Comprehensive Textbook (2nd ed.).
doi:10.1142/10909 ([Link] ISBN 978-981-3237-23-0.
OCLC 1084428655 ([Link] S2CID 62280636 (http
s://[Link]/CorpusID:62280636).
▪ Bernhardt, Chris (2019). Quantum Computing for Everyone. MIT Press.
ISBN 978-0-262-35091-4. OCLC 1082867954 ([Link]
4).
▪ Exman, Iaakov; Pérez-Castillo, Ricardo; Piattini, Mario; Felderer, Michael, eds. (2024).
Quantum Software: Aspects of Theory and System Design ([Link]
0.1007/978-3-031-64136-7). Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7 ([Link]
rg/10.1007%2F978-3-031-64136-7). ISBN 978-3-031-64136-7.
▪ Hidary, Jack D. (2021). Quantum Computing: An Applied Approach (2nd ed.).
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83274-2 ([Link]
ISBN 978-3-03-083274-2. OCLC 1272953643 ([Link]
3). S2CID 238223274 ([Link]
▪ Hiroshi, Imai; Masahito, Hayashi, eds. (2006). Quantum Computation and Information: From
Theory to Experiment. Topics in Applied Physics. Vol. 102. doi:10.1007/3-540-33133-6 (http
s://[Link]/10.1007%2F3-540-33133-6). ISBN 978-3-540-33133-9.
▪ Hughes, Ciaran; Isaacson, Joshua; Perry, Anastasia; Sun, Ranbel F.; Turner, Jessica (2021).
Quantum Computing for the Quantum Curious ([Link]
8-3-030-61601-4). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61601-4 ([Link]
1601-4). ISBN 978-3-03-061601-4. OCLC 1244536372 ([Link]
4536372). S2CID 242566636 ([Link]
▪ Jaeger, Gregg (2007). Quantum Information: An Overview. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36944-0 (h
ttps://[Link]/10.1007%2F978-0-387-36944-0). ISBN 978-0-387-36944-0. OCLC 186509710
([Link]
▪ Johnston, Eric R.; Harrigan, Nic; Gimeno-Segovia, Mercedes (2019). Programming Quantum
Computers: Essential Algorithms and Code Samples. O'Reilly Media, Incorporated.
ISBN 978-1-4920-3968-6. OCLC 1111634190 ([Link]
0).
▪ Kaye, Phillip; Laflamme, Raymond; Mosca, Michele (2007). An Introduction to Quantum
Computing. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-857000-4. OCLC 85896383 ([Link]
[Link]/oclc/85896383).
▪ Kitaev, Alexei Yu.; Shen, Alexander H.; Vyalyi, Mikhail N. (2002). Classical and Quantum
Computation. American Mathematical Soc. ISBN 978-0-8218-3229-5. OCLC 907358694 (htt
ps://[Link]/oclc/907358694).
▪ Kurgalin, Sergei; Borzunov, Sergei (2021). Concise Guide to Quantum Computing:
Algorithms, Exercises, and Implementations. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65052-0 (http
s://[Link]/10.1007%2F978-3-030-65052-0). ISBN 978-3-030-65052-0.
▪ Stolze, Joachim; Suter, Dieter (2004). Quantum Computing: A Short Course from Theory to
Experiment. doi:10.1002/9783527617760 ([Link]
ISBN 978-3-527-61776-0. OCLC 212140089 ([Link]
▪ Susskind, Leonard; Friedman, Art (2014). Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum.
New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-08061-8.
▪ Wichert, Andreas (2020). Principles of Quantum Artificial Intelligence: Quantum Problem
Solving and Machine Learning (2nd ed.). doi:10.1142/11938 ([Link]
38). ISBN 978-981-12-2431-7. OCLC 1178715016 ([Link]
5016). S2CID 225498497 ([Link]
▪ Wong, Thomas (2022). Introduction to Classical and Quantum Computing ([Link]
[Link]/#publications). Rooted Grove. ISBN 979-8-9855931-0-5. OCLC 1308951401
([Link]
▪ Zeng, Bei; Chen, Xie; Zhou, Duan-Lu; Wen, Xiao-Gang (2019). Quantum Information Meets
Quantum Matter. arXiv:1508.02595 ([Link]
doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9084-9 ([Link]
ISBN 978-1-4939-9084-9. OCLC 1091358969 ([Link]
9). S2CID 118528258 ([Link]

Academic papers
▪ Abbot, Derek; Doering, Charles R.; Caves, Carlton M.; Lidar, Daniel M.; Brandt, Howard E.;
et al. (2003). "Dreams versus Reality: Plenary Debate Session on Quantum Computing".
Quantum Information Processing. 2 (6): 449–472. arXiv:quant-ph/0310130 ([Link]
g/abs/quant-ph/0310130). Bibcode:2003QuIP....2..449A ([Link]
s/2003QuIP....2..449A). doi:10.1023/B:QINP.0000042203.24782.9a ([Link]
3%2FB%3AQINP.0000042203.24782.9a). hdl:2027.42/45526 ([Link]
2%2F45526). S2CID 34885835 ([Link]
▪ Berthiaume, Andre (1 December 1998). "Quantum Computation". Solution Manual for
Quantum Mechanics. pp. 233–234. doi:10.1142/9789814541893_0016 ([Link]
142%2F9789814541893_0016). ISBN 978-981-4541-88-6. S2CID 128255429 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:128255429) – via Semantic Scholar.
▪ DiVincenzo, David P. (2000). "The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation".
Fortschritte der Physik. 48 (9–11): 771–783. arXiv:quant-ph/0002077 ([Link]
uant-ph/0002077). Bibcode:2000ForPh..48..771D ([Link]
ForPh..48..771D). doi:10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11<771::AID-PROP771>[Link];2-E
([Link]
PROP771%[Link]%3B2-E). S2CID 15439711 ([Link]
5439711).
▪ DiVincenzo, David P. (1995). "Quantum Computation". Science. 270 (5234): 255–261.
Bibcode:1995Sci...270..255D ([Link]
CiteSeerX [Link].2165 ([Link]
2.2165). doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.255 ([Link]
55). S2CID 220110562 ([Link] Table 1 lists
switching and dephasing times for various systems.
▪ Jeutner, Valentin (2021). "The Quantum Imperative: Addressing the Legal Dimension of
Quantum Computers" ([Link]
5b). Morals & Machines. 1 (1): 52–59. doi:10.5771/2747-5174-2021-1-52 ([Link]
0.5771%2F2747-5174-2021-1-52). S2CID 236664155 ([Link]
usID:236664155).
▪ Krantz, P.; Kjaergaard, M.; Yan, F.; Orlando, T. P.; Gustavsson, S.; Oliver, W. D. (17 June
2019). "A Quantum Engineer's Guide to Superconducting Qubits". Applied Physics Reviews.
6 (2): 021318. arXiv:1904.06560 ([Link]
Bibcode:2019ApPRv...6b1318K ([Link]
doi:10.1063/1.5089550 ([Link] ISSN 1931-9401 ([Link]
[Link]/issn/1931-9401). S2CID 119104251 ([Link]
pusID:119104251).
▪ Mitchell, Ian (1998). "Computing Power into the 21st Century: Moore's Law and Beyond"
([Link]
▪ Simon, Daniel R. (1994). "On the Power of Quantum Computation" ([Link]
[Link]/[Link]). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer
Society Press.

External links

▪ Media related to Quantum computer at Wikimedia Commons

▪ Learning materials related to Quantum computing at Wikiversity
▪ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Quantum Computing ([Link]
ntries/qt-quantcomp/)" by Amit Hagar and Michael E. Cuffaro
 ▪ "Quantum computation, theory of" ([Link]
=Quantum_computation,_theory_of), Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]
▪ Introduction to Quantum Computing for Business by Koen Groenland ([Link]
[Link])
▪ Schneider, J., & Smalley, I. (2024, August 5). What Is Quantum Computing? | IBM. What Is
Quantum Computing? | IBM ([Link]
Lectures

▪ Quantum computing for the determined ([Link]

60FD05B44E4) – 22 video lectures by Michael Nielsen
▪ Video Lectures ([Link] Archived (https://
[Link]/web/20100210151240/[Link]
[Link]) 10 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine by David Deutsch
▪ Lomonaco, Sam. Four Lectures on Quantum Computing given at Oxford University in July
2006 ([Link]

Retrieved from "[Link]