Talk:Quantum simulator

MadmanBot is in error
The content in question is in the public domain and has been referenced as such. Therefore, I am removing the tag. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Should include description of other quantum simulator platforms
Only ion trap simulators are discussed in detail. Could add short summaries of progress in quantum simulation with: ultracold quantum gases, photonic systems, superconducting cubits. Also perhaps mention of implementation with NMR or proposals with quantum dots/nitrogen-vacancy centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maruichao (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Remove universal quantum simulator discussion?
Typically a "quantum simulator" is a device that simulates a specific quantum problem, while a universal quantum simulator simulates arbitrary quantum problems. Therefore a universal quantum simulator should probably be redirected to quantum computing instead of here. Sometimes this distinction is also framed "analog" quantum computing (i.e. quantum simulation) versus "digital" quantum computing. Ptbrown1729 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice subtle point. We should accomodate this in a seperate section. --mcyp (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Issues with Trapped-Ion Simulators Section
This section currently makes it seem like all trapped-ion simulators are 2D arrays of Beryllium ions. This is not true, as e.g. the group of Christopher Monroe, which is frequently referenced here, uses Ytterbium. Similarly Rainer Blatt's group used calcium, strontium, and possibly other species. Second, a large portion of this section is written like a brief literature review. It provides a list of scientific achievements, but very little context about what their goals are, etc. Ptbrown1729 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Exponential Slowdown
The article says "Feynman showed that a classical Turing machine would experience an exponential slowdown when simulating quantum phenomena, while his hypothetical universal quantum simulator would not." In what sense did he "show" this? Surely he didn't prove that quantum simulation is not in P, though the quote seems to imply this? Quantum simulation is in BQP, and BQP is a subset of PSPACE, so this would prove that P!=PSPACE, an unsolved problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrperson59 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The current formulation is much worse: "Feynman showed that a classical Turing machine would not be able to simulate a quantum effect, while his hypothetical universal quantum computer would be able to mimic needed quantum effect." This would imply a contradiction to the Church-Turing thesis. Sokka2D (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Mention of David Deutsch?
This article links to David Deutsch's 1985 paper, which demonstrates that a quantum simulator can indeed be universal, but does not otherwise cite it or even mention Deutsch's contribution. This strikes me as a glaring omission. Rriegs (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please update with: "Quantum Phases of Matter on a 256-Atom Programmable Quantum Simulator"
I think it would be good to add a short note about this to the article.

It's featured in 2021 in science like so:


 * Researchers present a programmable quantum simulator that can operate with 256 qubits.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hamiltonian simulation
Hamiltonian simulation should probably be merged with this article. ReyHahn (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)