Editing Quantum computing (section)

== Engineering<span class="anchor" id="Developing physical quantum computers"></span> ==
[[File:A Wafer of the Latest D-Wave Quantum Computers (39188583425).jpg|thumb|A [[wafer (electronics)|wafer]] of [[adiabatic quantum computer]]s]]
{{As of|2023|post=,}} classical computers outperform quantum computers for all real-world applications. While current quantum computers may speed up solutions to particular mathematical problems, they give no computational advantage for practical tasks. Scientists and engineers are exploring multiple technologies for quantum computing hardware and hope to develop scalable quantum architectures, but serious obstacles remain.<ref name="good-for-nothing" /><ref name="CACM" />

=== Challenges ===

There are a number of technical challenges in building a large-scale quantum computer.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dyakonov |first=Mikhail |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing |title=The Case Against Quantum Computing |journal=[[IEEE Spectrum]] |date=15 November 2018}}</ref> Physicist [[David P. DiVincenzo|David DiVincenzo]] has listed [[DiVincenzo's criteria|these requirements]] for a practical quantum computer:<ref>{{cite journal| arxiv=quant-ph/0002077 |title=The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation |last=DiVincenzo |first=David P. |date=13 April 2000 |doi=10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11<771::AID-PROP771>3.0.CO;2-E |volume=48 |issue=9–11 |journal=Fortschritte der Physik |pages=771–783 |bibcode=2000ForPh..48..771D |s2cid=15439711}}</ref>
* 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 can be read easily.

Sourcing parts for quantum computers is also very difficult. [[Superconducting quantum computing|Superconducting quantum computers]], like those constructed by [[Google]] and [[IBM]], need [[helium-3]], a [[Nuclear physics|nuclear]] research byproduct, and special [[superconducting]] cables made only by the Japanese company Coax Co.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Giles |first1=Martin |date=January 17, 2019 |title=We'd have more quantum computers if it weren't so hard to find the damn cables |language=en-US |publisher=MIT Technology Review |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612760/quantum-computers-component-shortage/ |access-date=May 17, 2021}}</ref>

The control of multi-qubit systems requires the generation and coordination of a large number of electrical signals with tight and deterministic timing resolution. This has led to the development of [[quantum controllers]] that enable interfacing with the qubits. Scaling these systems to support a growing number of qubits is an additional challenge.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Pauka SJ, Das K, Kalra B, Moini A, Yang Y, Trainer M, Bousquet A, Cantaloube C, Dick N, Gardner GC, Manfra MJ, Reilly DJ|journal=[[Nature Electronics]]|title=A cryogenic CMOS chip for generating control signals for multiple qubits|year=2021|volume=4|issue=4|pages=64–70 |doi=10.1038/s41928-020-00528-y|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-020-00528-y|arxiv=1912.01299|s2cid=231715555}}</ref>

==== Decoherence<span class="anchor" id="Quantum decoherence"></span> ====

One of the greatest challenges involved in constructing quantum computers is controlling or removing quantum decoherence. This usually means isolating the system from its environment as interactions with the external world cause the system to decohere. However, other sources of decoherence also exist. Examples include the quantum gates and the lattice vibrations and background thermonuclear spin of the physical system used to implement the qubits. Decoherence is irreversible, as it is effectively non-unitary, and is usually something that should be highly controlled, if not avoided. Decoherence times for candidate systems in particular, the transverse relaxation time ''T''<sub>2</sub> (for [[Nuclear magnetic resonance|NMR]] and [[MRI]] technology, also called the ''dephasing time''), typically range between nanoseconds and seconds at low temperatures.<ref name="DiVincenzo 1995">{{cite journal |last=DiVincenzo |first=David P. |title=Quantum Computation |journal=Science |year=1995 |volume=270 |issue=5234 |pages=255–261 |doi=10.1126/science.270.5234.255 |bibcode=1995Sci...270..255D |citeseerx=10.1.1.242.2165 |s2cid=220110562}}</ref> Currently, some quantum computers require their qubits to be cooled to 20 millikelvin (usually using a [[dilution refrigerator]]<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.cryogenics.2021.103390| issn=0011-2275 |title=Development of Dilution refrigerators – A review |journal=Cryogenics| volume=121| year=2022| last1=Zu| first1=H.| last2=Dai| first2=W.| last3=de Waele| first3=A.T.A.M.| s2cid=244005391}}</ref>) in order to prevent significant decoherence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jones |first1=Nicola |title=Computing: The quantum company |journal=Nature |date=19 June 2013 |volume=498 |issue=7454 |pages=286–288 |doi=10.1038/498286a|pmid=23783610|bibcode=2013Natur.498..286J|doi-access=free}}</ref> A 2020 study argues that [[ionizing radiation]] such as [[cosmic rays]] can nevertheless cause certain systems to decohere within milliseconds.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vepsäläinen |first1=Antti P. |last2=Karamlou |first2=Amir H. |last3=Orrell |first3=John L. |last4=Dogra |first4=Akshunna S. |last5=Loer |first5=Ben |last6=Vasconcelos |first6=Francisca |last7=Kim |first7=David K. |last8=Melville |first8=Alexander J. |last9=Niedzielski |first9=Bethany M. |last10=Yoder |first10=Jonilyn L. |last11=Gustavsson |first11=Simon |last12=Formaggio |first12=Joseph A. |last13=VanDevender |first13=Brent A. |last14=Oliver |first14=William D. |display-authors=5 |title=Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence |journal=Nature |date=August 2020 |volume=584 |issue=7822 |pages=551–556 |doi=10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8 |pmid=32848227 |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2619-8 |language=en |issn=1476-4687|arxiv=2001.09190 |bibcode=2020Natur.584..551V |s2cid=210920566 }}</ref>

As a result, time-consuming tasks may render some quantum algorithms inoperable, as attempting to maintain the state of qubits for a long enough duration will eventually corrupt the superpositions.<ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Amy |first1=Matthew |last2=Matteo |first2=Olivia |last3=Gheorghiu |first3=Vlad |last4=Mosca |first4=Michele |last5=Parent |first5=Alex |last6=Schanck |first6=John |title=Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3 |date=30 November 2016 |eprint=1603.09383 |class=quant-ph}}</ref>

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

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<sup>−3</sup>, assuming the noise is depolarizing.

Meeting this scalability condition is possible for a wide range of systems. However, the use of error correction brings with it the cost of a greatly increased number of required qubits. The number required to factor integers using Shor's algorithm is still polynomial, and thought to be between ''L'' and ''L''<sup>2</sup>, 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 10<sup>4</sup> bits without error correction.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dyakonov |first=M. I. |date=14 October 2006 |editor2=Xu |editor2-first=J. |editor3=Zaslavsky |editor3-first=A. |title=Is Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation Really Possible? |journal=Future Trends in Microelectronics. Up the Nano Creek |pages=4–18 |arxiv=quant-ph/0610117 |bibcode=2006quant.ph.10117D |editor1=S. Luryi}}</ref> With error correction, the figure would rise to about 10<sup>7</sup> bits. Computation time is about ''L''<sup>2</sup> or about 10<sup>7</sup> steps and at 1{{nbsp}}MHz, about 10 seconds. However, the encoding and error-correction overheads increase the size of a real fault-tolerant quantum computer by several orders of magnitude. Careful estimates<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Ahsan |first=Muhammad |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/923881411 |title=Architecture Framework for Trapped-ion Quantum Computer based on Performance Simulation Tool |date=2015 |bibcode=2015PhDT........56A |language=en-US |oclc=923881411}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Ahsan |first1=Muhammad |last2=Meter |first2=Rodney Van |last3=Kim |first3=Jungsang |date=2016-12-28 |title=Designing a Million-Qubit Quantum Computer Using a Resource Performance Simulator |journal=ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=39:1–39:25 |doi=10.1145/2830570 |s2cid=1258374 |issn=1550-4832|doi-access=free |arxiv=1512.00796 }}</ref> show that at least 3{{nbsp}}million physical qubits would factor 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<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gidney |first1=Craig |last2=Ekerå |first2=Martin |date=2021-04-15 |title=How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits |journal=Quantum |volume=5 |pages=433 |doi=10.22331/q-2021-04-15-433 |arxiv=1905.09749 |bibcode=2021Quant...5..433G |s2cid=162183806 |issn=2521-327X}}</ref> for practically useful integer factorization problem sizing 1,024-bit or larger.

Another approach to the stability-decoherence problem is to create a [[topological quantum computer]] with [[anyon]]s, [[quasi-particle]]s used as threads, and relying on [[braid theory]] to form stable logic gates.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Freedman | first1 = Michael H. | author1-link = Michael Freedman
 | last2 = Kitaev | first2 = Alexei | author2-link = Alexei Kitaev
 | last3 = Larsen | first3 = Michael J. | author3-link = Michael J. Larsen
 | last4 = Wang | first4 = Zhenghan
 | arxiv = quant-ph/0101025
 | doi = 10.1090/S0273-0979-02-00964-3
 | issue = 1
 | journal = Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society
 | mr = 1943131
 | pages = 31–38
 | title = Topological quantum computation
 | volume = 40
 | year = 2003}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Monroe |first=Don |url=https://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg20026761.700-anyons-the-breakthrough-quantum-computing-needs.html |title=Anyons: The breakthrough quantum computing needs? |journal=[[New Scientist]] |date=1 October 2008}}</ref>

=== Quantum supremacy ===

Physicist [[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 state-of-the-art classical computers.<ref>{{cite arXiv |last=Preskill |first=John |date=2012-03-26 |title=Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier |eprint=1203.5813 |class=quant-ph}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Preskill |first=John |date=2018-08-06 |title=Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond |journal=Quantum |volume=2 |pages=79 |doi=10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 |arxiv=1801.00862 |bibcode=2018Quant...2...79P |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |title=Characterizing Quantum Supremacy in Near-Term Devices|journal=Nature Physics |volume=14 |issue=6 |pages=595–600 |first1=Sergio |last1=Boixo |first2=Sergei V. |last2=Isakov |first3=Vadim N. |last3=Smelyanskiy |first4=Ryan |last4=Babbush |first5=Nan |last5=Ding |first6=Zhang |last6=Jiang |first7=Michael J. |last7=Bremner |first8=John M. |last8=Martinis |first9=Hartmut |last9=Neven |display-authors=5 |year=2018 |arxiv=1608.00263 |doi=10.1038/s41567-018-0124-x |bibcode=2018NatPh..14..595B |s2cid=4167494}}</ref> The problem need not be useful, so some view the quantum supremacy test only as a potential future benchmark.<ref>{{cite web |first=Neil |last=Savage |date=5 July 2017 |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-computers-compete-for-supremacy/ |title=Quantum Computers Compete for "Supremacy" |work=Scientific American}}</ref>

In October 2019, Google AI Quantum, with the help of NASA, became the first to claim to have achieved quantum supremacy by performing calculations on the [[Sycamore processor|Sycamore quantum computer]] more than 3,000,000 times faster than they could be done on [[Summit (supercomputer)|Summit]], generally considered the world's fastest computer.<ref name="1910.11333"/><ref>{{cite web |last=Giles |first=Martin |date=September 20, 2019 |title=Google researchers have reportedly achieved 'quantum supremacy' |website=MIT Technology Review |language=en |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/f/614416/google-researchers-have-reportedly-achieved-quantum-supremacy/ |access-date=May 15, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Tavares |first=Frank |date=2019-10-23 |title=Google and NASA Achieve Quantum Supremacy |url=http://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/quantum-supremacy |access-date=2021-11-16 |website=NASA |language=en-US}}</ref> This claim has been subsequently challenged: IBM has stated that Summit can perform samples much faster than claimed,<ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Pednault |first1=Edwin |last2=Gunnels |first2=John A. |last3=Nannicini |first3=Giacomo |last4=Horesh |first4=Lior |last5=Wisnieff |first5=Robert |date=2019-10-22|title=Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits |class=quant-ph |eprint=1910.09534}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cho |first=Adrian |date=2019-10-23 |title=IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/ibm-casts-doubt-googles-claims-quantum-supremacy |journal=Science |doi=10.1126/science.aaz6080 |s2cid=211982610 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> and researchers have since developed better algorithms for the sampling problem used to claim quantum supremacy, giving substantial reductions to the gap between Sycamore and classical supercomputers<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Liu |first1=Yong (Alexander) |last2=Liu |first2=Xin (Lucy) |last3=Li |first3=Fang (Nancy) |last4=Fu |first4=Haohuan |last5=Yang |first5=Yuling |last6=Song |first6=Jiawei |last7=Zhao |first7=Pengpeng |last8=Wang |first8=Zhen |last9=Peng |first9=Dajia |last10=Chen |first10=Huarong |last11=Guo |first11=Chu |title=Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis |chapter=Closing the "quantum supremacy" gap |display-authors=5 |date=2021-11-14 |series=SC '21 |location=New York, New York |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |pages=1–12 |arxiv=2110.14502 |doi=10.1145/3458817.3487399 |isbn=978-1-4503-8442-1 |s2cid=239036985}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bulmer |first1=Jacob F. F. |last2=Bell |first2=Bryn A. |last3=Chadwick |first3=Rachel S. |last4=Jones |first4=Alex E. |last5=Moise |first5=Diana |last6=Rigazzi |first6=Alessandro |last7=Thorbecke |first7=Jan |last8=Haus |first8=Utz-Uwe |last9=Van Vaerenbergh |first9=Thomas |last10=Patel |first10=Raj B. |last11=Walmsley |first11=Ian A. |display-authors=5 |date=2022-01-28 |title=The boundary for quantum advantage in Gaussian boson sampling |journal=Science Advances |language=en |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=eabl9236 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.abl9236 |issn=2375-2548 |pmc=8791606 |pmid=35080972 |arxiv=2108.01622 |bibcode=2022SciA....8.9236B}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=McCormick |first=Katie |date=2022-02-10 |title=Race Not Over Between Classical and Quantum Computers |url=https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/19 |journal=Physics |language=en |volume=15|page=19 |doi=10.1103/Physics.15.19 |bibcode=2022PhyOJ..15...19M |s2cid=246910085 |doi-access=free }}</ref> and even beating it.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Solving the Sampling Problem of the Sycamore Quantum Circuits |journal=Physical Review Letters |arxiv=2111.03011 |last1=Pan |first1=Feng |last2=Chen |first2=Keyang |last3=Zhang |first3=Pan |year=2022 |volume=129 |issue=9 |page=090502 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.090502 |pmid=36083655 |bibcode=2022PhRvL.129i0502P |s2cid=251755796}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |author=Cho |first=Adrian |date=2022-08-02 |title=Ordinary computers can beat Google's quantum computer after all |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/ordinary-computers-can-beat-google-s-quantum-computer-after-all |journal=Science |volume=377 |doi=10.1126/science.ade2364}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Google's 'quantum supremacy' usurped by researchers using ordinary supercomputer |url=https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/05/googles-quantum-supremacy-usurped-by-researchers-using-ordinary-supercomputer/ |access-date=2022-08-07 |website=TechCrunch |date=5 August 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref>

In December 2020, a group at [[University of Science and Technology of China|USTC]] implemented a type of [[Boson sampling]] on 76 photons with a [[Linear optical quantum computing|photonic quantum computer]], [[Jiuzhang (quantum computer)|Jiuzhang]], to demonstrate quantum supremacy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ball |first=Philip |date=2020-12-03 |title=Physicists in China challenge Google's 'quantum advantage' |journal=Nature |volume=588 |issue=7838 |page=380 |language=en |doi=10.1038/d41586-020-03434-7 |pmid=33273711 |bibcode=2020Natur.588..380B |s2cid=227282052 |doi-access=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Garisto |first=Daniel |title=Light-based Quantum Computer Exceeds Fastest Classical Supercomputers |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/light-based-quantum-computer-exceeds-fastest-classical-supercomputers/ |access-date=2020-12-07 |website=Scientific American |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Conover |first=Emily |date=2020-12-03 |title=The new light-based quantum computer Jiuzhang has achieved quantum supremacy |url=https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-light-based-quantum-computer-jiuzhang-supremacy |access-date=2020-12-07 |website=Science News |language=en-US}}</ref> The authors claim that a classical contemporary supercomputer would require a computational time of 600 million years to generate the number of samples their quantum processor can generate in 20 seconds.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Zhong |first1=Han-Sen |last2=Wang |first2=Hui |last3=Deng |first3=Yu-Hao |last4=Chen |first4=Ming-Cheng |last5=Peng |first5=Li-Chao |last6=Luo |first6=Yi-Han |last7=Qin |first7=Jian |last8=Wu |first8=Dian |last9=Ding |first9=Xing |last10=Hu |first10=Yi |last11=Hu |first11=Peng |display-authors=5 |date=2020-12-03 |title=Quantum computational advantage using photons |journal=Science |volume=370 |issue=6523 |pages=1460–1463 |language=en |doi=10.1126/science.abe8770 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=33273064 |arxiv=2012.01625 |bibcode=2020Sci...370.1460Z |s2cid=227254333}}</ref>

Claims of quantum supremacy have generated hype around quantum computing,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Roberson |first=Tara M. |date=2020-05-21 |title={{subst:title case|Can hype be a force for good?}} |journal=Public Understanding of Science |language=en |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=544–552 |doi=10.1177/0963662520923109 |pmid=32438851 |s2cid=218831653 |issn=0963-6625|doi-access=free }}</ref> but they are based on contrived benchmark tasks that do not directly imply useful real-world applications.<ref name="good-for-nothing" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cavaliere |first1=Fabio |last2=Mattsson |first2=John |last3=Smeets |first3=Ben |date=September 2020 |title=The security implications of quantum cryptography and quantum computing |url=http://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/10.1016/S1353-4858%2820%2930105-7 |journal=Network Security |language=en |volume=2020 |issue=9 |pages=9–15 |doi=10.1016/S1353-4858(20)30105-7 |s2cid=222349414 |issn=1353-4858}}</ref>

In January 2024, a study published in ''Physical Review Letters'' provided direct verification of quantum supremacy experiments by computing exact amplitudes for experimentally generated bitstrings using a new-generation Sunway supercomputer, demonstrating a significant leap in simulation capability built on a multiple-amplitude tensor network contraction algorithm. This development underscores the evolving landscape of quantum computing, highlighting both the progress and the complexities involved in validating quantum supremacy claims.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Yong |last2=Chen |first2=Yaojian |last3=Guo |first3=Chu |last4=Song |first4=Jiawei |last5=Shi |first5=Xinmin |last6=Gan |first6=Lin |last7=Wu |first7=Wenzhao |last8=Wu |first8=Wei |last9=Fu |first9=Haohuan |last10=Liu |first10=Xin |last11=Chen |first11=Dexun |last12=Zhao |first12=Zhifeng |last13=Yang |first13=Guangwen |last14=Gao |first14=Jiangang |date=2024-01-16 |title=Verifying Quantum Advantage Experiments with Multiple Amplitude Tensor Network Contraction |url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.030601 |journal=Physical Review Letters |language=en |volume=132 |issue=3 |page=030601 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.030601 |pmid=38307065 |issn=0031-9007|arxiv=2212.04749 |bibcode=2024PhRvL.132c0601L }}</ref>

=== Skepticism ===

Despite high hopes for quantum computing, significant progress in hardware, and optimism about future applications, a 2023 [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] spotlight article summarized current quantum computers as being "For now, [good for] absolutely nothing".<ref name="good-for-nothing">
{{Cite journal| journal = Nature | title = Quantum computers: what are they good for? | date = 24 May 2023 | first = Michael | last = Brooks| volume = 617 | issue = 7962 | pages = S1–S3 | doi = 10.1038/d41586-023-01692-9 | pmid = 37225885 | bibcode = 2023Natur.617S...1B | s2cid = 258847001 | doi-access = free }}
</ref> The article elaborated that quantum computers are yet to be more useful or efficient than conventional computers in any case, though it also argued that in the long term such computers are likely to be useful. A 2023 [[Communications of the ACM]] article<ref name = "CACM">{{Cite web | url = https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2023/5/272276-disentangling-hype-from-practicality-on-realistically-achieving-quantum-advantage/fulltext | publisher = Communications of the ACM | date = May 2023 | title = Disentangling Hype from Practicality: On Realistically Achieving Quantum Advantage | 
author1 = Torsten Hoefler | author2 =  Thomas Häner | author3 = Matthias Troyer}}
</ref> found that current quantum computing algorithms are "insufficient for practical quantum advantage without significant improvements across the software/hardware stack". It argues that the most promising candidates for achieving speedup with quantum computers are "small-data problems", for example in chemistry and materials science. However, the article also concludes that a large range of the potential applications it considered, 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".

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

* Conventional computer hardware and algorithms are not only optimized for practical tasks, but are still improving rapidly, particularly [[GPU]] accelerators. 
* Current quantum computing hardware generates only a limited amount of [[Quantum entanglement|entanglement]] before getting overwhelmed by noise.
* Quantum algorithms provide speedup over conventional algorithms only for some tasks, and matching these tasks with practical applications proved challenging. Some promising tasks and applications require resources far beyond those available today.<ref>{{Cite web| url = https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2022/12/266916-quantum-computers-and-the-universe/fulltext | publisher = Communications of the ACM |
title = Quantum Computers and the Universe | first = Don | last = Monroe | date = December 2022}}
</ref><ref>{{Cite web| url = https://thequantuminsider.com/2023/06/20/psiquantum-sees-700x-reduction-in-computational-resource-requirements-to-break-elliptic-curve-cryptography-with-a-fault-tolerant-quantum-computer/ | website = The Quanrum Insider | title = PsiQuantum Sees 700x Reduction in Computational Resource Requirements to Break Elliptic Curve Cryptography With a Fault Tolerant Quantum Computer| first = Matt | last = Swayne | date = June 20, 2023 }}
</ref> In particular, processing large amounts of non-quantum data is a challenge for quantum computers.<ref name=CACM/>
* Some promising algorithms have been "dequantized", i.e., their non-quantum analogues with similar complexity have been found.
* If [[quantum error correction]] is used to scale quantum computers to practical applications, its overhead may undermine speedup offered by many quantum algorithms.<ref name=CACM/>
* Complexity analysis of algorithms sometimes makes abstract assumptions that do not hold in applications. For example, input data may not already 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 maintain sufficiently high degree of entanglement for a long time. When trying to outperform conventional computers, quantum computing researchers often look for new tasks that can be solved on quantum computers, but this leaves the possibility that efficient non-quantum techniques will be developed in response, as seen for Quantum supremacy demonstrations. Therefore, it is desirable to prove lower bounds on the complexity of best possible non-quantum algorithms (which may be unknown) and show that some quantum algorithms asymptomatically improve upon those bounds.

[[Bill Unruh]] doubted the practicality of quantum computers in a paper published in 1994.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Unruh |first1=Bill |title=Maintaining coherence in Quantum Computers |journal=Physical Review A |volume=51 |issue=2 |pages=992–997 |arxiv=hep-th/9406058 |bibcode=1995PhRvA..51..992U |year=1995 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevA.51.992 |pmid=9911677 |s2cid=13980886}}</ref> [[Paul Davies]] argued that a 400-qubit computer would even come into conflict with the cosmological information bound implied by the [[holographic principle]].<ref>{{cite arXiv|last1=Davies|first1=Paul|date=6 March 2007 |title=The implications of a holographic universe for quantum information science and the nature of physical law |eprint=quant-ph/0703041}}</ref> Skeptics like [[Gil Kalai]] doubt that quantum supremacy will ever be achieved.<ref>{{cite web |author=Regan |first=K. W. |date=23 April 2016 |title=Quantum Supremacy and Complexity |url=https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/quantum-supremacy-and-complexity/ |website=Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kalai |first1=Gil |date=May 2016 |title=The Quantum Computer Puzzle |journal=Notices of the AMS |volume=63 |number=5 |pages=508–516 |url=https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201605/rnoti-p508.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Rinott |first1=Yosef |last2=Shoham |first2=Tomer |last3=Kalai |first3=Gil |date=2021-07-13 |title=Statistical Aspects of the Quantum Supremacy Demonstration |class=quant-ph |eprint=2008.05177}}</ref> Physicist [[Mikhail Dyakonov]] has 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 10<sup>300</sup>... Could we ever learn to control the more than 10<sup>300</sup> continuously variable parameters defining the quantum state of such a system? My answer is simple. ''No, never.''"<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dyakonov |first1=Mikhail |title=The Case Against Quantum Computing |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing |website=IEEE Spectrum |date=15 November 2018 |access-date=3 December 2019}}</ref>

=== Physical realizations ===
{{Further|List of proposed quantum registers}}

[[File:IBM Q system (Fraunhofer 2).jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|[[IBM Q System One|Quantum System One]], a quantum computer by [[IBM]] from 2019 with 20 superconducting qubits<ref>{{Cite news |last=Russell |first=John |date=January 10, 2019 |title=IBM Quantum Update: Q System One Launch, New Collaborators, and QC Center Plans |language=en-US |website=HPCwire |url=https://www.hpcwire.com/2019/01/10/ibm-quantum-update-q-system-one-launch-new-collaborators-and-qc-center-plans/ |access-date=2023-01-09}}</ref>]]

A practical quantum computer must use a physical system as a programmable quantum register.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tacchino |first1=Francesco |last2=Chiesa |first2=Alessandro |last3=Carretta |first3=Stefano |last4=Gerace |first4=Dario |date=2019-12-19 |title=Quantum Computers as Universal Quantum Simulators: State-of-the-Art and Perspectives |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qute.201900052 |journal=Advanced Quantum Technologies |language=en |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=1900052 |doi=10.1002/qute.201900052 |arxiv=1907.03505 |s2cid=195833616 |issn=2511-9044}}</ref> Researchers are exploring several technologies as candidates for reliable qubit implementations.{{sfn|Grumbling|Horowitz|2019|page=127}} [[Superconductors]] and [[trapped ion]]s are some of the most developed proposals, but experimentalists are considering other hardware possibilities as well.{{sfn|Grumbling|Horowitz|2019|page=114}} 
For example, [[topological quantum computer]] approaches are being explored for more fault-tolerance computing systems.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nayak |first1=Chetan |last2=Simon |first2=Steven H. |last3=Stern |first3=Ady |last4=Freedman |first4=Michael |last5=Das Sarma |first5=Sankar |date=2008-09-12 |title=Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation |url=https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083 |journal=Reviews of Modern Physics |volume=80 |issue=3 |pages=1083–1159 |doi=10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1083|arxiv=0707.1889 |bibcode=2008RvMP...80.1083N }}</ref>

The first quantum logic gates were implemented with [[trapped ion]]s and prototype general purpose machines with up to 20 qubits have been realized. However, the technology behind these devices combines complex vacuum equipment, lasers, 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.{{sfn|Grumbling|Horowitz|2019|page=119}}

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.{{sfn|Grumbling|Horowitz|2019|page=126}}