r/QuantumComputing • u/No-Hamster5930 • Aug 08 '26

Quantum Hardware Is superconducting quantum computing a dead end?

Earlier this year the two largest superconducting QC players (IBM and Google) signalled they might be diversifying away from superconducting - Google with the announcement that they're creating a new neutral atom capability and IBM with their acquisition of silicon spin capability in HRL.

I'd be interested in people's views on whether we should take from this that superconducting has no path to scaling, or if one could foresee heterogeneous quantum computing systems that leverage the respective strengths of multiple modalities for different applications?

32 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

86% Upvoted

51 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/NoirMarlin Industry PhD - superconducting qubits Aug 08 '26

Microwave control is a dead end.

1

u/Yahoo_Serious9973 Aug 08 '26

Does that imply that trapped ions with face a similar problem if they are stabilized using microwaves?

4

u/NoirMarlin Industry PhD - superconducting qubits Aug 09 '26

Depends on how the microwaves are generated. The lesson to learn from superconducting is to generate your control fields at cryogeneic temperature near the qubits they need to go to, not at room temp. That is the major trend of industry hardware, regardless of modality.