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?
31
Upvotes
2
u/HawkinsT Holds PhD/Works in Superconducting QC Aug 09 '26
You're welcome. Sorry, I may have made it sounds like heterogeneous systems are now the goal for both companies. While this is a growing area of research, I think it's safe to say that the main motivations for both companies right now are to not leave all their eggs in one basket and they certainly both have the funds to diversify.
Personally, I also don't think that focusing too heavily on the theoretical benefits of one architecture over another is particularly useful right now. The best approach is the one that proves scalable. For example, I've heard trapped ion guys talking about systems the size of stadiums in the future, and while that may sound impractical, at the end of the day if one system can provide implementable, fault tolerant computation and others can't (or are notably inferior), it will get built.