I'm a bit new to Quantum Computing and I wonder why organisations are using different physical architecture.

I realise that any physical implementation can be valid as long as it uses the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics, but what's the difference between these different approaches? Is it cost and skill difference?

Also, what's different between each implementation?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There are lots of advantages/disadvantages of each approach. But big picture, none of the physical approaches currently work. So people are trying to guess which approach will be the easiest to make a functioning quantum computer. This is hard to predict, because every approach is very far from being a functioning quantum computer. So people come to different conclusions. $\endgroup$ Aug 3 at 16:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There are also strategic considerations. Google and IBM are trying to build superconducting quantum computers. If it turns out that superconducting quantum computers work, it is unlikely that I will be able to beat Google and IBM. But if it turns out that superconducting quantum computers are impossible (or just very hard) to make work, then I might beat Google/IBM by trying an alternative approach. As a result, I might start trying to build a photonic quantum computer even if I think it's not as likely to work as a superconducting quantum computer, on the chance Google/IBM's approach fails. $\endgroup$ Aug 3 at 16:38


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.