IBM Updates Quantum Roadmap for Scalabity, Modularity, K-level Qubit Counts

IBM materials on Eagle and Quantum System Two
(Image credit: IBM)

IBM announced a revision of its (originally) 2020 quantum computing roadmap, bringing about a renewed focus in quantum computing scaling by doubling down on modularity and quantum-capable networking. In a day and age where delays are the norm, IBM's re-commitment to its quantum computing efforts instills confidence in the company's choice of framework, qubits, and software development, and it lead to the so-called quantum advantage sooner than expected.

IBM Roadmaps on Quantum computing.

IBM's original roadmap hoped to achieve 1 million plus qubits from 2026 and forward. (Image credit: IBM)
Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Francisco Pires
Freelance News Writer

Francisco Pires is a freelance news writer for Tom's Hardware with a soft side for quantum computing.

  • husker
    Just in case there is a theoretical physicist who is reading this , I'm going a bit off-subject at first but I'll bring it back to quantum computing . I used to think that we could circumvent the limitation of faster-than-light communications issue by using entangled quantum particles. As you may know, entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously without regard to distance. We change the spin on one of the entangled particles on Earth, and someone on Neptune with the other of the entangled pair sees the spin change on his particle instantaneously. Expand on this concept and soon your sending 1's and 0's back and forth and we have instantaneous communication. But any learned physicist (as well as Wikipedia) says "No, this will not work because reading the spin may actually change the spin and blah, blah, blah... science". Okay fine. I'll accept that without fully understanding. Then how is it that we can have entangled quantum particles as a key component to quantum computers from which we read values? Wouldn't the faster than light entangled particles be a much simplified version of a quantum computer with a count of just a couple of "useful" qubit pairs? What am I missing?
    Reply