Moore’s Law states that every 18 months, the number of transistors in a computer chip doubles, thereby increasing the speed of the computer (Arthur, 2005). In order for computer chip manufacturers to fit all of the extra transistors, the transistors themselves must become exponentially smaller. However, there must be a limit: Transistors cannot keep shrinking in size forever, and some scientists estimate that this limit will be reached sometime between 2010 and 2020. At such small sizes, electrons will begin leak out of the circuits (Arthur, 2005). So what does this mean for computers? Will they just stop becoming faster and effectively halt the progress of technology? The short answer is no.
Recently, scientists have been studying and developing a new kind of computer that works at the quantum level. Instead of having bits made of transistors, quantum computers have quantum bits (qubits) which can be made from almost any particle. The favorites so far have been atoms, photons, and electrons (Gomes, 2005). Traditional bits, those that are used widely today, can store either of the values 1 and 0. However, because of the strange things that happen at the quantum level, qubits can store either the value 1, the value 0, or both of those values at once. This combination of two values is called a “superposition,” and physicists say that
QUOTE
“any closed quantum system has a ‘superposition’ of all possible states”
(Arthur, 2005). In theory, this means that the qubits are in every possible binary configuration—at the same time. QUOTE
“It's as though your computer was simultaneously doing every calculation you'd ever asked it, or ever would, or could”
(Arthur, 2005).This ability to hold many values at once in just a handful of qubits is what makes quantum computing so special. The power that quantum computers would have both frightens and excites people in many fields. One of the most directly affected fields would be data encryption. Right now, data encryption is based on multiplying extremely large prime numbers (Arthur, 2005). The idea behind this method is that it would take centuries to factor the resulting numbers on a modern computer because of the inefficiencies of even the best factoring algorithms. However, the superpositions of quantum computers allow them to use special algorithms to factor large numbers extremely quickly. This makes it seem like quantum computing would be bad for people who rely heavily on encryption. However, because of another special property of qubits, a more powerful technique is available.
Quantum cryptography, a new idea in data encryption that seems to fit in well with quantum computing, utilizes an idea called “quantum entanglement.” This says essentially that it is possible for two or more qubits to become “entangled,” so that anything that effects one will effect the other, too (Begley, 2005). The application for quantum cryptography is as follows: Person 1 has two sets of photons which are entangled with each other and contain an encryption key. Person 1 then sends one set to person 2. If the photons make it safely to person 2, then person 2 can get the key and decrypt the data. However if they are intercepted, then the photons that person 1 has will be disrupted and no longer be useful (Begley, 2005). Because of this, quantum encryption is much more secure than current methods of encryption. In fact, it is nearly impossible to hack.
So why has this not been done yet? Well, it is not as simple as it sounds. Though a full-scale quantum computer is theoretically possible, it would require thousands of qubits, and so far we lack the technology to achieve such a feat (Cho, 2005). However, quantum computers have been made on a very small scale. IBM made several machines between 1998 and 2001 with three, five, and then seven qubits. These have been able to make simple calculations such as factoring small, two-digit numbers (Arthur, 2005). Impractical as these machines are, they mean progress. Unfortunately, there are other limiting factors: A qubit’s ability to store information deteriorates over time. Furthermore, the smaller the qubit, the quicker it decays.
QUOTE
“Currently the most promising qubits are likely to be able to store information for around one second, but that is unlikely to be long enough. Larger qubits will be able to hold information for longer, but will defeat the object of a quantum computer being small and fast”
(“Obstacle for Quantum,” 2005).For all this, though, the biggest problem with quantum computers right now is mostly that we just have not thought of a good solution yet. After all, what it really boils down to is a new idea. Thousands of things so far in human history have been labeled “impossible,” but then someone thought up an ingenious idea and now many “impossible” things are taken for granted: Computers, television, even electricity. So it is really not too far-fetched to say that quantum computers will be relatively commonplace in the near future, in fact it might be wrong to say that they will not. We only need for someone to wake up one day, shout “Eureka!” and build a practical quantum computer. Until then, we think.
QUOTE
Bibliography
Arthur, C. (2005, January 26). The encryption factor. The Independent, p. 11. Retrieved October
22, 2005, from ProQuest database: http://proquest.umi.com/login
Begley, S. (2005, October 14). Even scientists marvel at 'spooky' behavior of separated objects.
The Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from ProQuest database:
http://proquest.umi.com/login
Cho, D. (2005, September). Quantum Computing. Technology Review, 108(9), R&D 2005. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Web site:
http://www.technologyreview.com
Gomes, L. (2005, April 25). Quantum computing may seem too far out, but don't count on it. The
Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from ProQuest database:
http://proquest.umi.com/login
Obstacle for quantum computer. (2005, July 14). The Guardian, p. 6. Retrieved October 22,
2005, from ProQuest database: http://proquest.umi.com/login
Arthur, C. (2005, January 26). The encryption factor. The Independent, p. 11. Retrieved October
22, 2005, from ProQuest database: http://proquest.umi.com/login
Begley, S. (2005, October 14). Even scientists marvel at 'spooky' behavior of separated objects.
The Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from ProQuest database:
http://proquest.umi.com/login
Cho, D. (2005, September). Quantum Computing. Technology Review, 108(9), R&D 2005. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Web site:
http://www.technologyreview.com
Gomes, L. (2005, April 25). Quantum computing may seem too far out, but don't count on it. The
Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from ProQuest database:
http://proquest.umi.com/login
Obstacle for quantum computer. (2005, July 14). The Guardian, p. 6. Retrieved October 22,
2005, from ProQuest database: http://proquest.umi.com/login


