David Wineland, who won the Nobel Prize for work in quantum physics with Serge Haroche of France, said our limited computers will "eventually" give way to super-fast, revolutionary ones.

The pair, both 68, were honored for pioneering optical experiments in "measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems," the Nobel Physics jury said in its citation on Tuesday.

"Most science progresses very slowly," Wineland told AFP.

"On the computing side, we are able to think about applying these quantum systems to solve other problems that we try to do on computer now but our computers are limited.

"It has not happened yet and I am not even sure it will happen in the next decade, but I think it will eventually happen using quantum principles to make a quantum computer that will actually have applications."

In a pre-dawn phone interview recorded and posted on the Nobel committee website earlier, Wineland cautioned that such a super-computer was still a "long, long way" off.

Today's computers use a binary code, in which data is stored in a bit that could be either zero or one.

But in superposition, a quantum bit, known as a qubit, could be either zero or one, or both zero and one at the same time.

This potentially offers a massive increase in data storage, greatly helping number-crunching tasks such as running climate-change models and breaking encrypted codes.

But many technical hurdles remain to be overcome.

"If we have the quantum computer, it will allow us to efficiently simulate other quantum systems that are of interest," Wineland told AFP, noting that scientists today "are simply limited by the computing power of our conventional computers."

The research has also led to the construction of extremely precise clocks that could become the basis for a new standard of time, with a more than hundred-fold greater precision than present-day caesium atomic clocks, it said.

Specialists in optics, the two scientists worked independently of each other to trap particles, enabling the quantum state to be examined and manipulated at ultra-low temperatures.

"In some sense, the systems we worked on are in many ways complementary," said Wineland, project leader at the Ion Storage Group of US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology since 1979.

"We were never direct competitors but the nice thing is that we could look at a similar problem but in a different context. The experiments were different but they could be related at a fundamental level."

He said that news of his win was "overwhelming."

"This could have gone to so many people beside me," Wineland added, noting that a "huge" number of scientists are involved in his field.

Wineland said he was awakened in the middle of the night at his home in Boulder, Colorado with a call from the committee in Stockholm.

"Actually, my wife woke me up," he said. "I would have slept through it."

**Explore further:**
Quantum Computer Science on the Internet

## JGHunter

## hb_

So, in the future, we will be able to factorize large numbers into primes, but not much more. Whoopie...

## Deathclock

They should completely get rid of the comments component of this website in my opinion...

## antialias_physorg

Could you at least please google what quantum computing even means befor making such inane statements?

## Tausch

## scatter

Here's a link to the paper that is said to have started the field of quantum computing. Could you Natello point out where it goes wrong? No handwaving if possible please. You may not have access to it, but you can walk into the nearest university library with a decent physics journal selection and read it there. I'm looking forward to hearing your through analysis on this.

You should also note that numerical accuracy is not the limiting factor in trying to solve a many body problem on a classical computer.

## antialias_physorg

I doubt it - or you would not have given us this comment about the quantum uncertainty limit (which is a problem of classical computing). Classical computing works with defined states.

Quantum computing operates on superpositions of states (among other things). It's a totally diffferent critter. It is also open to a more probabilistic approach (i.e. trading off the certainty that a result is absolutely correct vs. computation time)

It wasn't transparent enough. Obviously you, personally, have not the least bit of a clue what you are talking about (on any subject whatsoever)

And THAT - while it is very clearly ad hominem - is NOT a fallacy. Anyone can go look up your posts and see the truth of it.

## sstritt

I gave you a five for the first sentence, but I find that the comments can be more informative than the article, or at least entertaining!

## Eventide

## Lurker2358

hb was actually correct.

there are very, very few known quantum algorithms with any real world application beyond silly crap like factoring large numbers (which would become useless for encryption anyway if quantum computing existed.)

quantum computers cannot solve problems instantly, nor can they solve all possibilities simultaneously. That is a fairy tale somebody invented along the way.

The gains in computational power is dependent on the individual problem you are trying to solve, and also, quantum algorithms tend to need tailoring to each and ever specfic task. I have never seen a "generalized" quantum algorithm, at least in the sense of the "code" or "logic" behind it.

You can write a generalize formula with a bunch of variables on both sides, but most of the time you can't even say what the variables represent.

Don't expect a QC in your home or work place...ever.

## Lurker2358

I watched several presentations from Stanford University.

While as stated, there definitely are places a QC outperforms classical computers, the majority of the types of problems presented tend to be things that are already known anyway.

The majority of computations on a normal computer are for just the operating system and video card.

Most of the time the computer is actually doing nothing but refreshing the monitor while it waits for the human's input.

## verkle

Oct 10, 2012## djr

This is because Deepak Chopra actually owns the word quantum - he is consulting with the universal intelligence to bring suit against the puny scientists who have hijacked his word. This is of course a problem - because you cannot talk to the universal intelligence without changing it - which invalidates the interaction. See - http://madmikesam...rom-him/

## Lex Talonis

I have quantum systems in my house for precision time keeping.

When the electrons move in a battery, the hands on my clock move, thus the spooky effect, that when enough electrons change state, that with a 99 to the 99th billion powers of certainty, the second hand will move one second, thus correlating the quantum effect, of the time constant shift in a registerable manner, based on electron spin.

## omersoft

iam work in master degree in :quantum cryptography

and write 5 papers about same subject.

know i attempt to improve the security of cloud computing depend on quantum cryptography

any one can help me please