Why Quantum Engineering Is Emerging as a Distinct Industrial Sector
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
So yeah I would be happy to work in that area again, though today there aren't that many well paying jobs there yet so I would take a big pay cut if doing that work, but if I wouldn't need to worry about money I would definitely work in that area again.
The irony here is that if you look at the job postings of quantum hardware vendors, they ask for a laundry list of skills that only a small handful of people on Earth realistically possess (you included).
People are given the impression that there's this outsized demand for Qiskit jockeys, when in reality, what we're currently calling quantum computers are basically physics experiments with the cables cleaned up and hidden in a cabinet. The results you get from these things are tightly coupled to their hardware implementation, and you need people who can work, or at least think, up and down the full stack to get even scientifically useful results. Same goes for quantum sensors, networks, and other so-called adjacent technologies.
Back to the reality where money is a real factor, what was the difference in compensation like? Was it like a 10x difference or closer to 2x?
I'm asking because I'm a software engineer/founder, but I stepped back from my career due to burnout. I went back to college to study physics and geek out on quantum computing, but I know it'll take grad school (likely a PhD plus postdoc) to grok the full stack. Trying to get a sense of what might be ahead of me.
Our VS Code extension is trivial to install (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/install-over...) or just try it entirely in the browser with Visual Studio Code online (https://vscode.dev/quantum/playground/)
To support that last scenario, where the language service, debugger, simulator, even package references, can run entirely in the browser, we built the whole thing using Rust compiled to WebAssembly, and our VS Code extension runs as pure JavaScript and Wasm. If interested you can dig into the implementation at https://github.com/microsoft/qsharp .
Happy to answer any questions!
Most quantum mechanics theory out there is taught by physicists.
You'll discover that their brain works in a way that's fundamentally different than that of a computer scientist, making it really hard.
Very specifically, you'll find that they are basically incapable to reason without physical support and/or experiments and sticking to a theoretical presentation of the subject from first principles is not something they can materially do.
Even Scott Aaronson, who claims to try to explay QM and QC using only math falls back to talking about particles and spin and shit after the fourth paragraph.
My recommendation: if you want to learn QM from first mathematical principles, avoid like the plague anything written by a physicist: they're all parroting each other tracing all the way back to Dirac and Bohr.
If you find a book that can talk about QM without using the following words "double slit experiment", "hydrogen atom", "spectrum", "spin", "wave", and only use terms taken from linear algebra in infinite dimensions then you stand a chance to understand.
Physics is full of examples of math informed by physical phenomena. There are some good QM/quantum optics books that heavily lean on the linear algebra.
Why? I've actually heard even physicists claim the exact opposite.
> otherwise you’re just left with linear algebra with a certain set of axioms.
You say it like it's a bad thing. In my book, it's a very, very good thing.
> Physics is full of examples of math informed by physical phenomena.
Yes indeed, it is. And many a discovery in math actually came from physics in the first place.
And the magic of math is: it extirpates the interesting principles and patterns from the muck of physical reality, making it available, stripped of its lowly origins, to reason with and apply to completely different contexts, including other areas of physics and engineering and CS.
> There are some good QM/quantum optics books that heavily lean on the linear algebra.
Please list some, I'd be very happy to peruse them.
Specifically please list some that don't just "lean" on linear algebra but use it exclusively.
Many a QM book basically expounds on the fact that it is both possible and legitimate to derive QM axiomatically and without ever resorting to physical references, only to immediately do the exact opposite of what they claim in the next chapter.
Many good attempts are being made to do exactly this with QC, and it is a good thing.
Far worse, many a physic teacher doesn't even understand the tools they're using from math: they're just parroting and regurgitating from memory a combo of the textbook and what they've been told all the way to grad school, and if you happen to manage to corner them after class to dig a little, you quickly discover how shallow their understanding of the math actually is.
Both Thermodynamics and Electromagnetism were initially hell on earth for me for this very reason: the profs were both incapable of explaining what the tools were and did, how they worked and why they were applicable. All they wanted was for you to absorb and memorize the formulas and stop asking all these stupid questions about the math.
When I finally understood the math tools underlying the two subjects, both thermo and electromagnetism became crystal clear, but boy was the initial exposure an effing headache.
A very good example of this is the famous book "div, grad, curl and all that" that many people hail as excellent. Well, I strongly disagree. It was written by a physicist, and the whole book is laden with references to either fluid mechanics or electromagnetism. It never is capable of explain things without making reference to physics when the tools are in fact completely independent of it.
“If anyone wants to concentrate his attention on infinite sets, measure theory, and mathematical pathology in general, he has every right to do so. And he need not justify this by pointing to useful applications or apologize for the lack of them; as was noted long ago, abstract mathematics is worth knowing for its own sake.
But others in turn have equal rights. If we choose to concentrate on those aspects of mathematics which are useful in real problems and which enable us to carry out the important substantive calculations correctly – but which the mathematical pathologists never get around to – we feel free to do so without apology.”
[Jaynes 2003, p. 673]
By the way, rigour and generality are different things.
I never assumed otherwise. That being said, I couldn't be bothered to memorize and reproduce the handwavy exposition that made sense to a particular physicist. And it's not that I was there to prove a point - I was asked about the basic constructions like probability distributions, densities etc.
> infinite sets, measure theory, and mathematical pathology > By the way, rigour and generality are different things.
Measure theory and Kolmogorov axiomatization addressed very real problems like Bertrand's paradox plaguing classical probabilit to the point that it was often seen as a black art rather than science. Moreover, stochastic processes in continuous time are not very intuitive and a sound theory would be next to impossible to develop without solid foundations.
They don’t solve the “paradox” - and it can be “solved” without them.
There are a couple of popular books about quantum computing in a general sense that could be interesting to read to get an idea about the subject, for example Scott Aaronon's 'Quantum Computing Since Democritus' and Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang's 'Quantum Computation an Quantum Information'. I do have the feeling, though, that these will be too deep for a general audience. Interesting and appealing, for sure, but perhaps difficult to understand for most people without a background in the matter.
Some lectures can be really interesting as well, but, again, probably at a level that is not approachable wihout some degree of academic knowledge on the matter. for example, Ronald de Wolf's quantum computing lecture notes from the University of Amsterdam, John Preskill's quantum information lecture notes from the California Institute of Technology, and Scott Aaronson's introduction to quantum science lecture notes. Probably all these lectures are available online.
Probably the best book to learn everything from the maths to the actual physical systems is 'Quantum Computing: From Linear Algebra to Physical Realizaitons', by Mikio Nakahara and Tetsuo Ohmi. This is a really complete book but also... a very expensive book! It's an academic book so not that approachable for the general public, but a great complement for those studying the subject as part of an academic course.
If you want to learn rudiments of how to program with Quiskit, and other topics, vendors like IBM provide excellent resources to get the basic ideas without the need to go too deep. If you want to know more, I would recommend perhaps to do a Masters or something like that. It's not a simple topic, it requires actual study to learn physics, mathematics, and other aspects of the technology.
Or, asking Claude to tell me about quantum mechanics? </facepalm>
There's an "Intro to Quantum Mechanics" section that covers what's strictly necessary to understand quantum algorithms.
For lectures, John Preskill's lectures from the Quantum Computation course at CalTech: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0ojjrEqIyPy-1RRD8cTD_lF1...
But you also need some math: Complex numbers, linear algebra, some basics of partial differential equations.
But a traditional university course in quantum mechanics aims at doing quantum mechanics in 3-dimensional space, to solve electron orbitals and energy levels of hydrogen atom. But all this 3-dimensional mathematics, you don't necessarily need if you just want to read about quantum computers. Maybe some quantum computers textbook has a presentation of the basics of quantum mechanics that leaves out the topics that traditional physics needs, because traditionally physics was interested in how atoms are build.
^^ The best resource there is to start with.
--
And a HEALTHY understating of ETYMOLOGY
---
Meaning:
we are realizing the fabric of the reality a we speak it
Speak is an interesting WERD
Understanding druidics and etymology will bring you close.. this is how you fabricate youre reality
I think it provides very useful abstractions for thinking about QC.
Now, if you're interested in how quantum computers operate, well good luck. That's a whole other beast.
All of them have some sort of post quantum security program.
None of them have deployed post quantum security at scale.
To me this means that they have a estimate of >10 years <30 years for Q day.
I disagree with them - I think >20 years < 50 years... but wtf do I know! I'm a fella on the internet with an axe to grind :)
well....ummm...............you see.........we are really happy with the progress we made so far and continue to make more progress.
something like that anyway. Not a single one ever says yeah real soon or defiantly by this date. The people that work there on other things basically laugh and say probably never but its an interesting job. To me Q-day is the same as every research stage tech, somewhere between tomorrow and never.
Disclaimer I never used the term q-day before but am adopting it for ease of commenting.
Rather an understatement. These are absolutely foundational engineering problems which nobody yet knows how to properly solve.