by Yee Wei Law - Saturday, 11 October 2025, 11:50 AM
Creating a low voltage to represent a logical “0” and a high voltage to represent a logical “1” is straightforward.
🤷♂️ Creating a superposition of low and high voltages however is not.
A quantum computer is commonly envisioned to be a machine that exploits the full complexity of a many-particle quantum wavefunction to solve computational problems [LJL+10].
The current state of quantum computing technologies is summarised by the keywords Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ).
NISQ computers are subject to substantial error rates and has a limited number of qubits [LLSK22, Sec. 1].
For the construction of quantum computers, laser serves as an inspiration because it is quantum mechanics that enables laser waves to be generated in phase [LJL+10].
Just as there are many possible materials for lasers (e.g., crystals, organic dye molecules, semiconductors, free electrons), there are many materials under consideration for quantum computers; see [LJL+10] and [MM12, Ch. 6].
Quantum bits are often imagined to be constructed from the smallest form of matter, e.g., an isolated atom, through ion traps and optical lattices, but they can also be made in components far larger than consumer electronics, e.g., a superconducting system [LJL+10].
Below we discuss three main technologies [LLSK22, Sec. 6]: 1️⃣ trapped ions, 2️⃣ photonics, and 3️⃣ superconducting qubits.
Trapped ions: Main idea is to use the two different internal states of a trapped atomic ion as a two-level system (i.e., qubit) [LLSK22, Sec. 6.2].
An ion trap uses electromagnetic fields and laser cooling to control the spatial position of an ion in vacuum and reduce the temperature of the ion [LLSK22, Sec. 6.2; BCSH21, Sec. 2].
Watch an introduction to the ion trap:
Lasers or microwaves are used to control the internal states of an ion [BCSH21, Figure 1].
The internal control plus the Coulomb repulsion between ions combine to form conditional logic gates [BCSH21, Figure 1].
👍: State preparation, qubit measurement, single-qubit and two-qubit gates can be performed with fidelities (> 99%) higher than what is required for quantum error correction [LLSK22, Sec. 6.2].
👎: A large array of bulk optical components are necessary and these are difficult to address and measure, challenging scalability [LLSK22, Sec. 6.2].
Trapped-ion quantum computers (e.g., IonQ) are enjoying a reasonable level of commercial success [LLSK22, Sec. 6.2].
Photonics: Photonics has always been a prominent candidate for realising qubits [LLSK22].
For generating qubits, photonics offers the following advantages [SP19, PAB+20, LLSK22]:
Photons are clean and decoherence-free quantum systems for which single-qubit operations can be easily performed with high fidelity, making photons a flagship system for studying quantum mechanics and developing quantum technologies.
Quantum entanglement, teleportation, QKD, and early quantum computing demonstrations were pioneered in photonics because photons represent a naturally mobile and low-noise system with quantum-limited detection readily available.
The quantum states of individual photons can be manipulated with high precision using interferometry, an experimental staple that has been under continuous development since the 19th century.
The ability to generate large numbers of photons and the development of integrated platforms, improved sources and detectors, novel noise-tolerant theoretical approaches render photonics a leading contender for both quantum information processing and quantum networking.
Nowadays, photonic quantum computing represents a promising path to medium- and large-scale processing.
Photonics is the primary technology for realising quantum communications.
Superconducting qubits: They are currently the leading contenders in the race for large-scale quantum computing [LLSK22]. Superconducting qubits are the technology big-tech companies like Google and IBM have been focusing on.
Fig. 1: The Sycamore processor [ABB+19, Fig. 1]: (Left) Processor layout comprising a rectangular array of 54 qubits (grey), each of which is connected to four neighbours through couplers (blue). The inoperable qubit is outlined. (Right) Photograph of the Sycamore chip.
In 2019, a large research team consisting of Google and multiple American and European universities demonstrated “quantum supremacy” on a programmable superconducting quantum processor called “Sycamore”, which consists of a two-dimensional array of 54 transmon qubits [AAB+19]:
In the superconducting circuit of Sycamore, conduction electrons condense into a macroscopic quantum state, such that currents and voltages behave quantum-mechanically.
Transmon is short for “transmission-line shunted plasma oscillation”.
The employed transmon qubits can be thought of as nonlinear superconducting resonators at 5-7 GHz, and each qubit encodes the two lowest quantum eigenstates of the resonant circuit.
Each qubit is connected to its four neighbouring qubits using an adjustable coupler for tuning inter-qubit coupling. 💡 Coupling qubits is essential for implementing two-qubit gates.
Each qubit is also connected to a linear resonator used to read out the qubit state.
Sycamore’s record might have been broken by China’s Zuchongzi in 2021 [Cho21].
In 2023, Google demonstrated quantum supremacy again with an increased qubit count of 70 [MVM+23].
IBM is slated to launch its 1121-bit NISQ computer called Condor.
References
[AAB+19]
F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S. Humble, S. V. Isakov, E. Jeffrey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, S. Knysh, A. Korotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, M. Lindmark, E. Lucero, D. Lyakh, S. Mandrà, J. R. McClean, M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, K. Michielsen, M. Mohseni, J. Mutus, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, C. Neill, M. Y. Niu, E. Ostby, A. Petukhov, J. C. Platt, C. Quintana, E. G. Rieffel, P. Roushan, N. C. Rubin, D. Sank, K. J. Satzinger, V. Smelyanskiy, K. J. Sung, M. D. Trevithick, A. Vainsencher, B. Villalonga, T. White, Z. J. Yao, P. Yeh, A. Zalcman, H. Neven, and J. M. Martinis, Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature574 no. 7779 (2019), 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5.
[BCSH21]
K. R. Brown, J. Chiaverini, J. M. Sage, and H. Häffner, Materials challenges for
trapped-ion quantum computers, Nature Reviews Materials6 no. 10 (2021), 892–905.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00292-1.
[Cho21]
C. Q. Choi, Two of World’s Biggest Quantum Computers Made in China > Quantum computers Zuchongzi and Jiuzhang 2.0 may both display "quantum primacy" over classical computers, IEEE Spectrum Computing news, 2021. https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-computing-china.
[LJL+10]
T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien,
Quantum computers, Nature464 no. 7285 (2010), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08812.
[LLSK22]
J. W. Z. Lau, K. H. Lim, H. Shrotriya, and L. C. Kwek, NISQ computing: where are we and where do we go?, AAPPS Bulletin32 no. 1 (2022), 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43673-022-00058-z.
A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandrà, A. Bengtsson, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen,
S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Drozdov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movassagh, A. Asfaw, L. T.
A. N. Brandão, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bilmes, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell,
T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, J. Campero, H. S. Chang, B. Chiaro, D. Chik,
C. Chou, J. Cogan, R. Collins, P. Conner, W. Courtney, A. L. Crook, B. Curtin,
D. M. Debroy, A. D. T. Barba, S. Demura, A. D. Paolo, A. Dunsworth, L. Faoro,
E. Farhi, R. Fatemi, V. S. Ferreira, L. F. Burgos, E. Forati, A. G. Fowler, B. Foxen,
G. Garcia, E. Genois, W. Giang, C. Gidney, D. Gilboa, M. Giustina, R. Gosula, A. G.
Dau, J. A. Gross, S. Habegger, M. C. Hamilton, M. Hansen, M. P. Harrigan, S. D.
Harrington, P. Heu, M. R. Hoffmann, T. Huang, A. Huff, W. J. Huggins, L. B. Ioffe,
S. V. Isakov, J. Iveland, E. Jeffrey, Z. Jiang, C. Jones, P. Juhas, D. Kafri, T. Khattar,
M. Khezri, M. Kieferová, S. Kim, A. Kitaev, A. R. Klots, A. N. Korotkov, F. Kostritsa,
J. M. Kreikebaum, D. Landhuis, P. Laptev, K. M. Lau, L. Laws, J. Lee, K. W. Lee,
Y. D. Lensky, B. J. Lester, A. T. Lill, W. Liu, A. Locharla, F. D. Malone, O. Martin, S. Martin, J. R. McClean, M. McEwen, K. C. Miao, A. Mieszala, S. Montazeri, W. Mruczkiewicz, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, C. Neill, A. Nersisyan, M. Newman,
J. H. Ng, A. Nguyen, M. Nguyen, M. Y. Niu, T. E. O’Brien, S. Omonije, A. Opremcak, A. Petukhov, R. Potter, L. P. Pryadko, C. Quintana, D. M. Rhodes, C. Rocque,
P. Roushan, N. C. Rubin, N. Saei, D. Sank, K. Sankaragomathi, K. J. Satzinger, H. F.
Schurkus, C. Schuster, M. J. Shearn, A. Shorter, N. Shutty, V. Shvarts, V. Sivak,
J. Skruzny, W. C. Smith, R. D. Somma, G. Sterling, D. Strain, M. Szalay, D. Thor,
A. Torres, G. Vidal, C. V. Heidweiller, T. White, B. W. K. Woo, C. Xing, Z. J. Yao,
P. Yeh, J. Yoo, G. Young, A. Zalcman, Y. Zhang, N. Zhu, N. Zobrist, E. G. Rieffel, R. Biswas, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. Hilton, E. Lucero, H. Neven, A. Megrant,
J. Kelly, I. Aleiner, V. Smelyanskiy, K. Kechedzhi, Y. Chen, and S. Boixo, Phase
3
transition in random circuit sampling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11119, 2023. https:
//doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.11119.
[SP19]
S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review, Applied Physics Reviews6 no. 4 (2019), 041303. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115814.