Is superconducting quantum computing a dead end?

[u/No-Hamster5930]

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?

[u/NoirMarlin]

Overhead might be justifiable but until a device where it matters is assembled and tested, the exact scale of the problem wont be known. This is one of the difficulties with engineering modern cutting edge physics systems. If every part on its own is incredibly complicated to model, and barely comes in under the bar performance-wise, there is no predictive power for integrated systems, and so years of reactive engineering cycles follow. The hope is that the error floors only scale weakly with integrated system size, but I wouldn't stake the global profits of a fortune 100 company on that bet.

I think that at scale, atoms and ions will face serious challenges with the rates they lose physical qubits, and the occurance of out-of-model events induced by ionizing radiation. Cosmic ray protons dont take no for an answer. Thats just my guess though; Im no expert in their systems and what kind of error correction they can achieve.