It seems that quantum computers can be classified by the type of quantum they operate on. Not entirely sure what category most common current systems fall into (eg. D-Wave, Google, IBM, Microsoft). Photonic computing seems to be one of the more 'popular' alternative methods. Curious about other forms of unconventional quantum computing.

Quasi interested in a few different cases:

  • Phonon - sound based

  • Roton - vortex based

  • Dropleton - quantum droplet*

  • Fracton - fractal analog of phonons*

  • Plasmon - plasma based

Also curious about chronons & virtual particles.

Have significant breakthroughs in quantum computing been made using non-standard quanta?


closed as too broad by heather Jul 16 '18 at 18:41

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ What makes a "quantum" "non-standard"? $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Jul 11 '18 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ @NorbertSchuch "non-standard quantum" would be anything that isn't "standard quantum" (as stated in my question, I'm not sure what the "standard quantum" is) $\endgroup$ – meowzz Jul 13 '18 at 5:26
  • $\begingroup$ @meowzz Aha, so "non-standard" is what isn't "standard". That's not exactly a very enlightning definition. In particular, once a significant breakthrough is made with a non-standard approach, doesn't this mean we have to consider it standard? $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Jul 13 '18 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ @NorbertSchuch Again, I'm not sure what the current standard is. Regarding standards in the future, this question may very well have significantly different answers. $\endgroup$ – meowzz Jul 13 '18 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ But is "standard" sth. which has already been done in the lab? Or where people are currently trying to set up an experiment? Or just sth. where people have made a theoretical proposal talking about how this could potentially be realized in the lab? These are vastly different possibilities! $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Jul 13 '18 at 20:54

The only two quasi-particle quanta for which I know there to be active research in quantum computing are phonons and anyons.

  • $\begingroup$ If you could update your answer to reflect the updated question it would be much appreciated. $\endgroup$ – meowzz Jul 19 '18 at 1:20

I'm not sure if you count adiabatic quantum computing as fringe, but there was a paper using 4 NMR qubits to implement a adiabatic analogue to HHL which allowed them to invert an 8x8 operator with 98.4% fidelity which got put on arXiv a couple weeks ago. I thought that was pretty neat.

  • $\begingroup$ I had considered adiabatic & topological as well but did not include them (primarily because I do not the quantum they operate upon). $\endgroup$ – meowzz Jul 10 '18 at 17:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Adiabatic is a model of quantum computation. Any quantum that standard quantum computing uses, adiabatic can use too. Topological uses anyons. $\endgroup$ – user1271772 Jul 11 '18 at 7:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ NMR has been the very first scheme to experimentally realize quantum computing. $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Jul 13 '18 at 20:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NorbertSchuch True. My answer was referring to the pre-edit version of the question that used the phrasing of "Fringe" instead of non-standard quanta. The qubits are certainly somewhat common (albeit less worked on than other models from what I can see) but the methods were what I found interesting! $\endgroup$ – Dripto Debroy Jul 14 '18 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ Question has been updated if you would like to update your answer. $\endgroup$ – meowzz Jul 19 '18 at 1:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.