Quantum computing falls very much on the future side of this newsletter’s editorial ambit, but that future is already here for a small, yet burgeoning, group of companies. As lawmakers discuss reauthorizing the $1.2 billion National Quantum Initiative Act, companies selling quantum computing products on the commercial market are urging Congress to focus not just on R&D, but on how the tech can be used right now. According to them, if that doesn't happen America risks losing the technological edge and private-sector strength that powered its global domination of the smartphone era. In various conversations over the past month business, policy, and research voices in commercial quantum have had a common refrain: When it comes to quantum, the federal government risks slipping behind globally if it prioritizes R&D over current applications. “We spent $1.3 trillion on an infrastructure package, but none of it looked at how we can use quantum computing to do this in a better manner,” said Allison Schwartz, the global government relations and public affairs lead at quantum computing company D-Wave. (She cited examples like her company’s collaboration with the Japanese government to optimize evacuation routes during natural disasters, or Australia’s plan to use quantum to modernize its transportation network, as possible models.) Those projects are intriguing, but they invite the cardinal question in quantum development and decision-making: Can quantum computers reliably outdo their classical counterparts that we use today? So far, the answer is no. Just look at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which recently held a competition to develop (hopefully) “quantum-proof” cryptography standards and ultimately selected four classical algorithms to do the job. “Classical computing is just unbelievably good. It's the crown jewel of our civilization,” said Scott Anderson, director of the Quantum Information Center at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the foremost experts on quantum computing, when we spoke earlier this month. “Even when a general problem like simulating a large quantum system is intractable for a classical computer, the chemists and the physicists [who require massively powerful computing] don't just give up. They resort to other heuristics and approximation methods that often get them there in practice,” he continued. Quantum computing is struggling to overcome the problem of “decoherence,” or the inability to keep a “qubit” — essentially a quantum transistor — stable enough to perform calculations, a process that faces extreme scientific and logistical challenges. (For a fairly effective explainer for the layperson, or a journalist, of what this sophisticated physics problem means, read here.) Companies like D-Wave skirt the fact that this hasn’t really been solved yet by taking different approaches to the technology than the scientists trying to crack the decoherence problem at IBM or Google are. Quantum Computing Inc. (or QCi), for example, uses a technique that accepts the inherent instability of quantum systems, and then uses photons to leverage that instability into something capable of computation, as described in a presentation by the company’s COO and CTO Bill McGann. D-Wave uses a process called quantum annealing that boasts greater stability than traditional, or "gate-based" quantum systems, but for which the applications are limited to quantitative problems in industries like medicine or finance. (They announced in 2021 that they’re now developing gate-based quantum computers as well.) Who’s buying these systems, and what are they used for? QCi announced last year a partnership with a Dutch bank to use its "entropy" computers to detect fraud. Early D-Wave systems were purchased by Lockheed Martin to solve computational problems, and purchased by Google itself in 2013 to power a collaboration with NASA. Despite promising recent developments, however, it remains the case that in 2023 there’s no definitive proof of a quantum computer doing something a classical computer cannot do. That means even quantum computers’ current practical applications are orienting more toward pushing the field forward, or familiarizing forward-thinking companies with the technology so they have a leg up over competitors when the quantum future does arrive. (Last week I met with Sergio Gago Huerta, head of quantum at Moody’s and author of the Quantum Pirates newsletter, who described his work largely as educating quants at financial firms on how the technology can fit into their deeply number-crunching-heavy trade.) And it’s not as if the government is doing nothing when it comes to quantum’s applications: Among the Biden administration’s just-announced slate of regional tech hubs mandated by last year’s CHIPS and Science Act is a project called Elevate Quantum Colorado, which seeks to “increase infrastructure resilience and strengthen the quantum hardware supply chain” by building on the region’s robust research infrastructure. Still, commercial quantum boosters argue that government-assisted synergy with the private sector is necessary to keep both research and application thriving — and that similar to the case made in a report earlier this month from the Center For Data Innovation, it’s vital for keeping America in the driver’s seat globally. “The technology is advanced enough. The U.K. is engaging, the EU is engaging, Germany, Australia, Japan, but also China and Russia,” said D-Wave’s Schwartz. “We need to work together with our allies, so the U.S. doesn't fall behind.”
| 
