Spooky Chips: The Strange, Entangled Heart of the Next Computing Revolution

Sayed Mahbub Hasan Amiri; Prasun Goswami; Chandan Kumar Barmmon; Md Mainul Islam; Mohammad Shakhawat Hossen; Mohammad Sohel Kabir; Marzana Mithila; Naznin Akter

doi:10.20944/preprints202601.0804.v2

Submitted:

28 January 2026

Posted:

29 January 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

The limitations of classical computing in solving complex problems in cryptography, materials science, and optimization necessitate the development of a new computational paradigm based on the principles of quantum mechanics. This article aimed to analyze the current state of quantum computing hardware, evaluate the primary challenges to achieving fault tolerance, and project a realistic timeline for its practical application. The methodology involved a systematic review and comparative analysis of publicly available empirical data from peer-reviewed literature and corporate technical roadmaps, employing a framework of key performance indicators such as coherence times, gate fidelities, and qubit counts to assess leading qubit modalities, including superconducting circuits, trapped ions, and photonic systems. The analysis confirmed that while superconducting qubits currently lead in scalability, with demonstrations of quantum supremacy using 53-qubit processors, trapped ion platforms maintain a significant advantage in gate fidelity and coherence times. The central finding identifies decoherence and high error rates as the fundamental barriers, necessitating that current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices rely on error mitigation techniques rather than robust quantum error correction. The comparative assessment concludes that no single qubit modality yet fulfills all DiVincenzo criteria for fault tolerance simultaneously. The path to scalable quantum computing is shown to depend on the successful implementation of topological error-correcting codes like the surface code, which currently requires thousands of physical qubits to create a single stable logical qubit. Projections based on current progress suggest that while demonstrations of quantum utility on specific problems are imminent, fully fault-tolerant quantum computers capable of breaking RSA encryption or revolutionizing drug discovery remain a long-term endeavor, likely requiring several more decades of intensive research and development. The practical value of this research lies in its synthesized technical overview, which provides a clear, evidence-based roadmap for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to navigate the technological hurdles and strategic investments required to realize the transformative potential of quantum computing.

Keywords:

decoherence

;

entanglement

;

quantum computing

;

qubit

;

superposition

;

quantum revolution

Subject:

Computer Science and Mathematics - Computer Science

Introduction

The trajectory of human progress is often marked by the ability to harness the fundamental forces of nature, from steam power to electricity, and finally, to the silent dance of electrons within a classical silicon chip. Each revolution has been built upon an intuitive, if complex, understanding of the physical world. Current research is situated at a point of significant potential transition, driven by principles from quantum mechanics which initially presented considerable interpretative challenges to its early developers. This realm is quantum mechanics, and its most confounding feature was succinctly, described by Albert Einstein as “spooky action at a distance” (Musser, 2022). This phrase was a critique of quantum entanglement, a phenomenon where two particles become inextricably linked, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, where the states of particles remain correlated across any distance, presented a significant theoretical challenge by appearing to contradict the relativistic limit of the speed of light. This behavior remained a foundational conceptual issue within quantum mechanics. Currently, research into this phenomenon is transitioning from theoretical investigation to applied engineering within corporate and national research facilities. Article argues that the very phenomena such superposition and entanglement now form the foundational principles of quantum computing, a technology poised to solve problems the most powerful classical supercomputers.

The limitations of classical computing are not merely a matter of speed but of fundamental architecture. Classical computers, for all their sophistication, operate on a binary language of bits zeros and ones, on and off states. This paradigm, governed by Moore's Law, is confronting fundamental physical limits and diminishing economic returns as scaling reaches the atomic scale, necessitating a shift toward advanced packaging and heterogeneous integration (Shalf, 2020; Moore, 2022). More critically, there exists a class of problems that are intractable for these machines. Simulating the dynamics of large molecules for drug discovery, optimizing global supply chains with millions of interdependent variables, or breaking the RSA encryption that secures modern digital communications are problems that remain intractable for classical supercomputers, often requiring timescales to solve (IBM Research, 2023). The pursuit of quantum computing is driven by the potential to solve such classically impossible problems. This computational ceiling has constrained innovation in fields from materials science to artificial intelligence, creating a pressing need for a new computational paradigm.

The quantum computer represents a fundamentally different approach to computation rather than merely an incremental improvement. Its fundamental unit is not the bit, but the quantum bit or qubit. A qubit leverages the principle of superposition, allowing it to exist not as a 0 or 1, but as a probabilistic blend of both states simultaneously. This is akin to a coin spinning in the air, being both heads and tails at once, only collapsing to a definite state upon measurement. A single qubit holds this potential, but the true power is unlocked through entanglement, the modern incarnation of Einstein’s “spooky action.” When qubits become entangled, they form a single, interconnected quantum system. The state of one qubit cannot be described independently of the others. This means a system of just 300 entangled qubits can exist in a superposition of 2³⁰⁰ distinct states (Susskind & Friedman, 2020). It is this exponential scaling of information representation that provides quantum computers with their theorized overwhelming advantage for specific, crucial tasks.

The journey from initial theoretical conception to practical quantum systems has been protracted and marked by profound technical challenges. The foundational principles were established in the early 1980s, notably by Richard Feynman, who argued that simulating quantum physics requires a quantum mechanical tool. However, it was not until the 2020s that the field decisively transitioned from a theoretical endeavor into a robust engineering discipline. We are now firmly within the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, characterized by processors housing from tens to over a thousand qubits (IBM, 2023). These devices are "noisy" because their qubits are fragile, losing their quantum coherence through minuscule interactions with the environment. A pivotal milestone was Google's 2019 demonstration of so-called "quantum computational advantage" using its 53-qubit Sycamore processor, which performed a specific, albeit not commercially useful, calculation far beyond the practical reach of contemporary classical supercomputers (Arute et al., 2024). While the terminology and implications of such demonstrations remain topics of debate, they signify a critical inflection point where quantum computation evolved from a theoretical framework into a tangible, experimental reality.

Therefore, the primary goal of this research was to conduct a systematic analysis of the progression from Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) processors to fault-tolerant quantum computers, identifying the key engineering bottlenecks and evaluating the viability of current hardware and software approaches. To achieve this goal, the following specific tasks are defined:

1. To synthesize and compare the key performance indicators including qubit count, coherence times, gate fidelities, and connectivity of the leading quantum computing platforms, namely superconducting circuits, trapped ions, and photonic systems.

2. To analyse the fundamental challenge of decoherence and critically evaluate the two-pronged strategic response: quantum error correction as a long-term solution and error mitigation techniques for the NISQ era.

3. To assess the current software and algorithmic ecosystem, including hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, and its role in extracting utility from imperfect hardware.

Materials and Methods

This article employs a systematic methodology to analyse the state of quantum computing, focusing on a multi-faceted review of publicly available empirical data, a synthesis of diverse sources, and a structured analytical framework to interpret.

This study adopts a qualitative technological review and analysis research design. The objective is not to generate new primary experimental data but to comprehensively synthesize, evaluate, and interpret the existing body of public knowledge from industry, academia, and government research labs. This design is chosen because it is the most appropriate for mapping a nascent technological field, identifying key trends, comparing competing technological approaches, and critically assessing claims of advancement against a set of objective metrics. The analysis is structured to move from a description of the current state (what exists) to a diagnostic evaluation (how it performs) and finally to a normative assessment (what it means for the future). This process allows for a holistic understanding of the entire quantum computing stack, from the physical layer of qubits to the application layer of algorithms, providing a clear picture of both the immense potential and the formidable challenges that define the current era.

Data Collection

The data informing this analysis were gathered from a wide array of all sources to ensure breadth, credibility, and triangulation of evidence.

Primary sources constitute raw, empirical evidence that provides direct insight into the performance and capabilities of quantum hardware and software. This includes:

Performance Benchmark Data: The quantum hardware benchmark focus has shifted toward utility. IBM now emphasizes scale and speed (CLOPS) over Quantum Volume (IBM, 2023a; IBM, 2023b). Google achieved a major error reduction (Google Quantum AI, 2023), while Quantinuum reported record gate fidelities and a QV of 2^20 (Quantinuum, 2023). Atom Computing announced rapid platform scaling (Atom Computing, 2023), highlighting divergent paths to practical quantum computing.
Peer-Reviewed Experimental Claims: The field has progressed to focus on quantum utility and error correction. Key demonstrations now include Quantinuum and Microsoft's high-fidelity logical qubits (Pino et al., 2024) and IBM's quantum utility experiment simulating Ising model dynamics (Kim et al., 2023). These milestones are intensely scrutinized, sparking a dynamic race with classical simulation algorithms (Gao et al., 2024).
Cloud Quantum Computing Access: Hands-on analysis of results from running standardized circuits on publicly accessible quantum processors via cloud platforms like the IBM Quantum Experience and Righetti’s Quantum Cloud Services. This provided practical, albeit limited, data on current noise levels, error rates, and the real-world performance of NISQ-era devices.

Secondary Sources provided the necessary context, interpretation, and foundational knowledge to frame the primary data. This category includes:

Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles and Reviews: Synthesis of high-impact publications from leading journals such as Nature, Science, Physical Review X, and PRX Quantum. These articles provide the theoretical underpinnings, detailed experimental methods, and authoritative commentary on the field's direction.
Technical White Papers and Roadmaps: Official publications from leading companies that detail their technical approaches, hardware specifications, and future development roadmaps. These documents, while inherently promotional, contain valuable technical data and stated goals against which actual progress can be measured.
Conference Proceedings: Presentations and publications from major international conferences, notably the IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE).

SWOT Analysis

Strengths: The article demonstrates considerable strength through its comprehensive and meticulously structured approach to a complex subject. It provides a systematic, multi-faceted review of quantum computing by employing clear analytical frameworks, such as standardized Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the DiVincenzo criteria, to objectively compare leading hardware platforms like superconducting qubits and trapped ions. This technical rigor is bolstered by excellent, up-to-date research, synthesizing a wide array of recent peer-reviewed literature (2023-2024) and corporate technical roadmaps from industry leaders such as IBM, Google, and IonQ. Furthermore, the article successfully balances deep technical analysis with broader perspective, dedicating meaningful discussion to ethical dimensions, security threats, and societal implications like the "quantum divide," which elevates it beyond a purely engineering-focused review.

Weaknesses: Despite its thoroughness, the article is not without weaknesses. Its highly technical and dense prose, while precise, may present a significant accessibility barrier for readers without a strong background in physics or computer science. There is also a degree of repetition in highlighting fundamental challenges like decoherence and error correction across different sections, which can make the narrative feel occasionally redundant. As a review paper, a core limitation is its reliance on synthesizing existing public data rather than presenting new primary research or experimental results. Additionally, the conclusion presents a slight thematic disconnect; it narrows focus specifically to hybrid quantum-classical algorithms like the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE), which, while relevant, feels disproportionately specific compared to the article's earlier expansive exploration of hardware, algorithms, and future eras.

Opportunities: The structured and evidence-based nature of the article creates several valuable opportunities. It serves as an excellent foundational resource that can be adapted into educational materials, textbook chapters, or policy white papers to guide students, researchers, and strategic investors. The clear comparative tables and phased technological roadmap (NISQ, early fault-tolerant, full fault-tolerant eras) provide a tangible framework for tracking progress and prioritizing research and development investments. The article also effectively lays the groundwork for interdisciplinary collaboration, bridging hardware engineering, algorithmic development, and ethics. Finally, by distilling its balanced insights on both potential and risk, it offers a credible basis for public engagement and informed dialogue about managing the societal transition to a quantum-enabled future.

Threats: The analysis and its projections face inherent threats due to the dynamic nature of the field. The most significant threat is rapid technological obsolescence; breakthroughs in qubit modalities, error correction, or algorithmic efficiency could render specific comparative assessments or timeline projections outdated within a short timeframe. The article's heavy reliance on corporate roadmaps and press releases, while necessary, introduces a potential threat of commercial bias into its evaluation of technological viability and timelines. Furthermore, the article itself underscores profound existential threats, such as the breaking of current encryption standards, which could lead to public anxiety or reactive policymaking if the accompanying solutions (like post-quantum cryptography) are not emphasized with equal clarity. Ultimately, the article's long-term utility is threatened by the very pace of the revolution it describes, necessitating its treatment as a living snapshot rather than a definitive endpoint.

Analytical Framework

The collected data was analysed through a multi-pronged analytical framework designed to extract meaningful insights and make evidence-based projections.

Comparative analysis was used to objectively evaluate the competing qubit modalities. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are identified for a head-to-head comparison, as synthesized in Table 1. This involves collecting data on: Coherence Time (T₁, T₂), the duration for which a qubit maintains its quantum state; Gate Fidelity, the accuracy of single- and two-qubit logic operations, often the most critical metric; Qubit Connectivity, the ability to perform operations between non-adjacent qubits, which affects algorithm efficiency; Scalability, the potential and demonstrated progress in increasing qubit counts within a given architecture.

To enable an objective evaluation, the collected data was analysed using a framework of standardized Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Framework for comparative analysis of qubit modalities.

Performance Indicator	Definition	Significance	Ideal Value
Coherence Time (T₁/T₂)	Time for quantum information to decay/phase to be lost	Determines the maximum number of operations possible before the qubit fails. Longer is better.	Milliseconds to Seconds
Gate Fidelity	Measure of the accuracy of a quantum logic gate operation	Directly impacts error rates and the feasibility of error correction. Higher is better.	> 99.9%
Two-Qubit Gate Fidelity	Accuracy of entangling operations	Critical for executing quantum algorithms. Often the bottleneck. Higher is better.	> 99.5%
Qubit Connectivity	The flexibility of connecting any qubit to any other	Reduces circuit depth and complexity for algorithms. All-to-all is ideal but rare.	High/Medium
Readout Fidelity	Accuracy of measuring the final qubit state	Essential for obtaining a correct result. Higher is better.	> 98%

Source: Krantz et al. (2019); IonQ (2023).

Trend Analysis involved tracking the progression of the KPIs identified above over time. By plotting metrics like qubit count (for specific vendors), Quantum Volume, and reported gate fidelities on a timeline, trajectories of progress can be established. This analysis helps answer critical questions: Is progress linear or exponential? Are error rates improving at a pace that will support fault tolerance? Extrapolating these trends, while acknowledging potential future bottlenecks, allows for evidence-based speculation on development timelines, such as the potential arrival of fault-tolerant quantum computation.

This multi-methodological approach ensures a comprehensive, critical, and balanced assessment of quantum computing, separating tangible progress from hyperbolic speculation and providing a clear-eyed view of the journey to harness quantum phenomena.

Results

The Theoretical Bedrock: Why is it "Spooky"?

To comprehend the revolutionary potential of quantum computing, one must first venture into the counterintuitive laws of quantum mechanics that serve as its foundation. This realm operates on principles that defy everyday macroscopic experiences, principles that Einstein famously found so disturbing he labelled them "spooky" (Musser, 2022). This spookiness is not a bug but the very feature that grants quantum computers their phenomenal power. It manifests primarily through two concepts: superposition, which redefines the nature of information itself, and entanglement, which creates inexplicable correlations between particles. Together, they form a computational paradigm that is but is fundamentally and exponentially different.

The Bit vs. The Qubit: Redefining Information

The entire digital age is built upon the classical bit, the fundamental unit of information. A bit is binary and deterministic; it can exist in one of two distinct states, represented as a 0 or a 1. Every email, photograph, and software application are, at its core, a vast sequence of these unambiguous 0 s and 1 s being processed through logic gates. A classical computer with n bits can represent one of 2^n possible states at any given time, but it can only be in one of those states.

The quantum bit, or qubit, shatters this binary constraint. A qubit is a two-state quantum-mechanical system, such as the spin of an electron (up or down) or the polarization of a photon (horizontal or vertical). However, unlike a classical bit, a qubit can exist in a superposition of the 0 and 1 states. This means it is not in one state or the other but embodies a probability amplitude for both states simultaneously. A common analogy is a spinning coin. While it is spinning, it is not simply "heads" or "tails"; it is in a blurred state that has the potential to become either once it lands and is observed. Mathematically, the state of a qubit |ψ⟩ is described as:

The state of a single qubit, |ψ⟩, is a linear combination of the basis states |0⟩ and |1⟩, and is described by the equation:

ψ=α0+β1.

(1)

This indicates that the qubit exists in a superposition of both states simultaneously, where α and β are complex probability amplitudes. The probability of the qubit collapsing to |0⟩ upon measurement is |α|², and to |1⟩ is |β|², adhering to the normalization condition |α|² + |β|² = 1. This probabilistic nature is the first jarring departure from classical computing.

The power of superposition grows exponentially with the number of qubits. While two classical bits can be in one of four possible states (00, 01, 10, 11), but only one at a time, two qubits in superposition can represent all four states simultaneously. With three qubits, all eight states are represented, and so on. A system of n qubits can thus exist in a superposition of 2^n states. This allows a quantum computer to perform a single operation on all these states at once, a capability known as quantum parallelism. This is the source of the quantum computer's potential for massive computational speedups, as it can, in a sense, explore a vast landscape of possibilities in a single step.

Entanglement: The Quantum Mystery That Baffled Einstein

Entanglement is a powerful correlation that can exist between two or more qubits, a connection so strong that the quantum states of the qubits cannot be described independently, only as a unified whole. When qubits become entangled, measuring the state of one qubit instantaneously determines the state of the other, no matter how vast the physical distance separating them.

Consider a simple example with two entangled qubits in a specific state known as a Bell state. This pair can be described such that if one qubit is measured and found to be |0⟩, the other will always be |1⟩, and vice versa. This correlation is perfect and immediate. This " Non-local Quantum Correlations " seems to violate the principle of locality, the idea that objects can only be influenced by their immediate surroundings. Contemporary physics no longer debates the existence of quantum entanglement, as it has progressed from a puzzling implication of quantum theory to a technologically harnessable reality, decisively validated by experiments inspired by John Stewart Bell (Arvidsson-Shukur et al., 2020; Scholkmann, 2021). It is crucial to understand that no information is transmitted faster than light in this process; the outcome of the measurement on the first particle is random, and the second particle simply reflects that random outcome instantaneously. The " Quantum Entanglement " lies in the fact that the particles share a single quantum state before measurement and acting on one part of this shared state affects the whole.

In computational terms, entanglement is the resource that allows quantum computers to perform complex operations on a massive scale. That links qubits together, enabling the 2^n states of an n-qubit system to be manipulated in a coordinated way. Without entanglement, a quantum computer's capacity would be severely limited. It is the combination of superposition (holding many states at once) and entanglement (correlating those states) that allows a quantum computer to process information in a way that is fundamentally intractable for any classical machine. This principle transforms the computer from a sequential processor into a device that leverages quantum parallelism to explore a combinatorial solution space exponentially large in the number of qubits (Kaye, Laflamme, & Mosca, 2022).

Key Algorithms Demonstrating Advantage

The abstract concepts of superposition and entanglement find their concrete purpose in quantum algorithms, which are specifically designed to leverage these phenomena to solve problems. Two algorithms, in particular, serve as canonical proofs of concept, demonstrating a provable quantum advantage over the best-known classical algorithms.

Shor's Algorithm: Proposed by Peter Shor in 1994, this algorithm is famous for its ability to efficiently factor large integers into their prime components. This is a problem of ractical importance because the security of the widely used RSA public-key cryptosystem relies entirely on the fact that factoring large numbers is prohibitively difficult for classical computers. A classical algorithm’s time to solve this problem grows exponentially with the number of digits, making it secure for now. Shor's algorithm, by cleverly using quantum superposition and entanglement to find the period of a function, can solve the problem in polynomial time dramatically faster (Shor, 1994). The threat posed by this algorithm is the primary impetus behind the global push to adopt post-quantum cryptography, which comprises encryption standards considered secure against attacks from classical and quantum computers alike.

Grover's Algorithm: Developed by Lov Grover in 1996, this algorithm provides a quadratic speedup for searching unstructured databases. While a classical computer must, on average, check N/2 items to find a specific one in an unsorted list of N items, Grover's algorithm can find it in approximately √N steps. For example, to find a single name in a phone book of 1 million entries, a classical computer might need 500,000 checks, while a quantum computer using Grover's would need only about 1,000. This is achieved by using quantum superposition to assess multiple database entries simultaneously and then using quantum interference to amplify the amplitude of the correct answer while suppressing the wrong ones through a series of iterative " rotations" (Grover, 1996). While the speedup is less dramatic than Shor's exponential leap, its applicability to a wide range of optimization and search problems makes it profoundly important. As summarized in Table 1, these algorithms are not just mathematical curiosities but provide a provable quantum advantage over the best-known classical counterparts for specific, crucial tasks.

Table 1. Key quantum algorithms demonstrating computational advantage.

Algorithm	Problem Solved	Classical Complexity	Quantum Complexity	Practical Implication
Shor's	Integer Factorization	Exponential	Polynomial	Breaks RSA encryption; necessitates post-quantum cryptography
Grover's	Unstructured Search	O(N)	O(√N)	Quadratic speedup for broad optimization and search problems

Note: complexity describes how the computation time scales with the size of the input, N. Source: Notes that while Shor's algorithm remains a long-term cryptographic threat, current quantum hardware is primarily demonstrating value by running hybrid algorithms like QAOA for optimization, rather than executing pure, fault-tolerant quantum algorithms (McKinsey & Company, 2024).

These algorithms demonstrate that quantum computers, utilizing superposition and entanglement, offer a provable computational advantage for specific problems. This constitutes the foundational principle justifying the pursuit of quantum computing as a novel scientific instrument, distinguishing it from theoretical possibility and driving substantial research investment to realize its potential.

Current State of Research

The journey from theoretical concept to functional quantum hardware is a monumental engineering challenge, arguably one of the most difficult of the 21st century. In 2020 have witnessed a dramatic acceleration in this journey, moving the field from academic laboratories into the realm of industrial R&D and public cloud access. This section synthesizes the current state of knowledge, reviewing the progress across hardware platforms, the parallel development of a software ecosystem, and ultimately identifying the critical gap between the noisy devices of today and the fault-tolerant computers of tomorrow.

Milestones in Quantum Hardware

The path to building a quantum computer is guided by a clear set of requirements. The DiVincenzo Criteria provide a five-point checklist that any viable quantum computing platform must fulfil: (1) a scalable physical system with well-characterized qubits; (2) the ability to initialize the qubit state to a pure ground state (e.g., |0⟩); (3) long coherence times (relative to gate operation time); (4) a universal set of quantum gates; and (5) a high-fidelity qubit-specific measurement capability (DiVincenzo, 2000). These criteria frame the entire engineering pursuit, as every hardware platform struggles to satisfy all five simultaneously at scale.

The current landscape is defined by a race between several competing qubit modalities, each with distinct strengths and weaknesses in meeting the DiVincenzo criteria. The leading approach, often termed the "workhorse" of the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, is superconducting qubits. These are small circuits etched onto chips, cooled to temperatures near absolute zero to exhibit quantum behaviour. Their primary advantage is manufacturability using techniques adapted from the classical semiconductor industry, allowing for rapid scaling of qubit counts. Quantum supremacy, while a pivotal proof-of-concept, has given way to a new phase defined by rapid scaling and the pursuit of verifiable utility. Beyond initial random sampling tasks, with progress marked by increased qubit counts, improved gate fidelities, and sophisticated error suppression and mitigation techniques. This era is characterized by experiments on processors like Zuchongzhi that execute more complex, algorithmically structured circuits to demonstrate quantum advantage, and by roadmaps targeting the execution of practical, error-corrected algorithms. The field's trajectory is now oriented toward demonstrating reliable quantum utility on problems of tangible complexity (Wu et al., 2021; Arute et al., 2024; IBM Quantum, 2023). IBM has pursued a aggressive scaling strategy with its superconducting family (Hummingbird, Eagle, Osprey), announcing a 433-qubit processor in 2022 and roadmaking to over 4,000 qubits by 2025 (Gambetta, 2022). However, these devices are plagued by short coherence times and high error rates, requiring immense error correction overhead.

A formidable competitor is the trapped ion platform, pursued by companies like IonQ and Quantinuum. Here, qubits are represented by the electronic states of individual atoms (e.g., Ytterbium), suspended in vacuum by electromagnetic fields and manipulated with lasers. The key advantages of this approach are exceptionally long coherence times and high-fidelity gate operations due to the identical nature of atomic qubits and their weak coupling to the environment. IonQ has reported average single-qubit gate fidelities above 99.97% and two-qubit gate fidelities above 99.3% on its latest systems (IonQ, 2023), metrics that often surpass those of superconducting rivals. The primary challenge for trapped ions has been scaling the number of qubits and speeding up gate operations, as manipulating large, linear chains of ions becomes increasingly complex.

Beyond these two front-runners, alternative platforms offer unique value propositions. Photonic quantum computing, championed by Xanadu, uses particles of light (photons) as qubits. Its main advantage is that it operates at room temperature, and photonic states are inherently robust against decoherence. Xanadu has demonstrated quantum computational advantage using Gaussian Boson Sampling, a specific algorithm suited to photonic systems (Madsen et al., 2022). Meanwhile, topological qubits, pursued by Microsoft and others, represent a more futuristic but potentially transformative approach. The idea is to encode information not in the state of a single particle, but in the collective topological properties of a system (e.g., non-abelian anyons). This would make the qubits inherently protected from local noise, drastically reducing error rates. While demonstrating a topological qubit remains a fundamental physics challenge, its potential for native error resistance makes it a highly anticipated area of research. The current technological landscape is defined by a race between several competing qubit modalities, each with distinct trade-offs in performance and scalability, as detailed in Table 2.

The quest for a practical, fault-tolerant quantum computer is being pursued along multiple, divergent hardware pathways, each with distinct physical principles and strategic trade-offs. The current landscape can be summarized by two core dichotomies:

The current NISQ-era landscape is defined by a central duel between scalability and fidelity. The superconducting path, borrowing from semiconductor fabrication, aggressively pursues qubit count but wrestles with the theoretical and practical challenges of noise and decoherence in complex, macroscopic circuits. In contrast, the trapped-ion path offers superb qubit quality and operational precision naturally, but its core theoretical struggle lies in scaling the apparatus—managing the control complexity and communication bottlenecks as more ions are added, which often sacrifices gate speed.

Looking beyond these established frameworks, more radical proposals aim to redefine the substrate of quantum information itself. The photonic approach leverages robust, room-temperature light, but its theoretical hurdle is executing deterministic logic on flying qubits, often relying on probabilistic schemes. The most profound shift is promised by topological quantum computing, which theorizes encoding information in the braided paths of non-Abelian anyons for inherent error protection. Here, the monumental theoretical challenge is the physical creation and manipulation of these exotic quantum states. Thus, the field is not a single race but a multifaceted exploration; the likely path forward may not be a single winner but a hybrid architecture that strategically integrates the engineered strengths of platforms like superconductors and trapped ions with the paradigm-shifting potential of novel encodings.

The Software and Algorithmic Ecosystem

The advancement of quantum hardware is accompanied by the development of a comprehensive software and algorithmic infrastructure. This infrastructure is requisite for formalizing quantum mechanical principles into operational circuit models and compiling them into machine-level instructions for execution on quantum processing units. This ecosystem is built on open-source software development kits (SDKs) that abstract away the underlying physics. IBM’s Qiskit, Google’s Cirq, and Xanadu’s PennyLane are prominent examples, providing developers with high-level languages to construct quantum circuits, simulate them on classical computers, and run them on real hardware via the cloud (Häner et al., 2021). These tools have been instrumental in building a global community of quantum developers and researchers.

Given the inherent noise present in contemporary quantum hardware, a major research focus is the development of Quantum Error Correction (QEC). The core principle, adapted from classical information theory, involves using many unreliable physical qubits to construct a single, more robust logical qubit. Among various strategies, topological codes such as the surface code remain highly promising; here, qubits are arranged on a lattice, and errors are identified via syndrome measurements on adjacent qubits while preserving the logical quantum state. Recent experimental advances—for example, the realization of a distance-3 surface code that demonstrated reduced error rates (Google Quantum AI, 2023)—mark significant progress toward fault-tolerant quantum computation. Nevertheless, present projections indicate that a single logical qubit with sufficiently low error rates for practical applications may necessitate hundreds to thousands of physical qubits, underscoring the substantial scaling obstacles that remain (Krinner et al., 2022; Google Quantum AI, 2023).

Hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithms represent a foundational methodology for extracting computational value from Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) processors. The paradigmatic algorithm in this class is the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE). VQE employs a parameterized quantum circuit to prepare an ansatz state, whose properties (such as the expectation value of a Hamiltonian) are evaluated on the quantum device. A classical optimizer subsequently uses this information to variationally minimize a cost function through iterative parameter updates. This architecture provides inherent robustness to coherent errors and has established VQE as a primary technique for investigating quantum-enhanced simulations in quantum chemistry and condensed matter physics (Cerezo et al., 2021).

Identifying the Gap

A review of the contemporary literature reveals a persistent and pivotal discrepancy. While advances in expanding raw qubit counts have been both rapid and prominently documented, corresponding progress in diminishing error rates and deploying practical quantum error correction (QEC) has proceeded at a more gradual and incremental pace. The field is presently positioned to achieve demonstrations of quantum utility—wherein a quantum computer surpasses classical capabilities on a scientifically substantive, if not commercially transformative, task in the near term. Nonetheless, a significant gap persists between this milestone and the realization of fault-tolerant quantum computation (FTQC).

The gap lies in the transition from demonstrating isolated principles on few-qubit systems to integrating all required technologies high-fidelity gates, long coherence times, scalable QEC, and efficient classical control into a single, scalable architecture. We are firmly within the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, where managing and mitigating noise is the defining challenge. The field’s focus has shifted from demonstrating quantum principles to the immense engineering task of building systems where native gate fidelities are high enough for practical error correction. Recent roadmaps and reviews emphasize that achieving fault tolerance requires not only qubit numbers in the millions but also physical error rates substantially below

10^{- 3}

to

10^{- 4}

, a threshold current hardware is approaching but has not yet met at scale (Bacon et al., 2023; Bluvstein et al., 2024; Campbell et al., 2024). While the theoretical path forward—scaling logical qubits via quantum error-correcting codes—is well understood, the practical execution demands simultaneous advances in qubit coherence, control precision, connectivity, and manufacturing yield. This integrated engineering hurdle is so profound that consensus estimates project the transition from today’s noisy devices to fault-tolerant quantum computers will likely require a decade or more of sustained development (Kim et al., 2023).

Results & Discussion: Taming Entanglement Distillation and Distribution

The Decoherence Problem: The Enemy Within

The primary obstacle to practical quantum computation is decoherence, the process by which a qubit loses its quantum information through interactions with its external environment. This phenomenon is the direct antagonist of the Entangled states of superposition and entanglement. Unlike a classical bit, which is robustly either 0 or 1, a qubit’s state is a delicate probability amplitude. Any unwanted coupling to the outside world be it a stray photon, a vibration, or a fluctuating magnetic field acts as an inadvertent measurement, causing the qubit to decohere by collapsing from its superposition into a definite, classical state (0 or 1) and destroying any entanglement it shared with other qubits.

The sources of decoherence are multifaceted and platform-dependent, though universally present in quantum systems. For superconducting qubits, coherence is primarily bounded by two processes: energy relaxation (T₁), characterized by the loss of energy from the qubit to its environment, causing a decay from the excited |1⟩ state to the ground |0⟩ state; and dephasing (T₂), which randomizes the relative phase of a quantum superposition without an associated energy loss (Krinner et al., 2022; Carroll et al., 2023). These processes are exacerbated by imperfections in the materials and control systems. For trapped ions, while coherence times are longer, the qubits can be disturbed by fluctuations in the trapping fields or collisions with background gas atoms. The core of the problem is that a quantum computer must be perfectly isolated from its environment to preserve its state, yet it must be perfectly controllable to manipulate and measure that state. This tension between isolation and control is the fundamental engineering paradox at the heart of the entire endeavour. A useful quantum algorithm requires thousands to millions of high-fidelity gate operations, but current qubit coherence times only permit tens to hundreds of operations before information is irreversibly lost to decoherence.

Error Correction vs. Error Mitigation: A Two-Front War on Quantum Noise

The field's response to the challenge of decoherence follows a dual strategy, balancing a definitive long-term vision with pragmatic near-term approaches. The long-term solution is Quantum Error Correction (QEC), which draws inspiration from classical information theory to encode a single, fault-tolerant logical qubit across many physical qubits. By redundantly distributing quantum information, the system can detect and correct errors on individual components without directly measuring—and thus destroying—the logical quantum state. A leading approach is the topological surface code, where physical qubits are arranged in a lattice, and errors are identified through the continuous measurement of stabilizer operators on local groups of qubits (Google Quantum AI, 2023; Krinner et al., 2022).

However, QEC is profoundly demanding. Current estimates suggest that realizing a single logical qubit with an error rate low enough for practical algorithms may require hundreds or even thousands of high-fidelity physical qubits operating in concert. A recent milestone by Google Quantum AI (2023) demonstrated a distance-3 surface code that successfully suppressed error rates, but it required 49 physical qubits to create one logical qubit that was still not more robust than its individual components. This highlights the overhead problem: the resource cost of full-scale fault tolerance is astronomical with current physical error rates.

Concurrently, for the NISQ era, researchers have developed error mitigation techniques. These are software-based strategies that do not prevent errors but instead characterize the noise profile of a device and then mathematically "subtract" its effects from the final results of a computation. Techniques like Zero-Noise Extrapolation (ZNE) run the same quantum circuit at different noise levels (e.g., by stretching gate times) and extrapolate the result back to the zero-noise limit (Temme et al., 2017). While error mitigation extends the usefulness of current devices for specific tasks, its effectiveness is limited to shallow circuits and its computational cost scales exponentially with circuit depth.

The Path to Scalability: From Dozens to Millions

Scaling from the current NISQ processors to a fault-tolerant quantum computer (FTQC) is arguably the greatest engineering challenge in technology today. It is not merely a matter of adding more qubits, like adding more transistors to a chip. Each additional physical qubit introduces new control lines, generates more heat, and increases the potential for crosstalk and new error mechanisms. For superconducting qubits, this requires the development of complex cryogenic control systems and quantum-native classical electronics to manage millions of qubits. For trapped ions, the challenge is to move from 1D linear chains to 2D ion-trap arrays with shuttling capabilities to enable connectivity between distant qubits.

The scalability challenge extends beyond the processor itself to the entire quantum stack. It necessitates advances in cryogenics (for superconducting systems), laser and optical delivery systems (for photonic and trapped-ion systems), control software, compilers that optimize for specific hardware constraints, and the classical computing infrastructure needed to control the quantum device and process its output. As Gambetta (2022) outlined in IBM's roadmap, the journey involves not just increasing qubit count but systematically improving all other parameters gate fidelity, coherence time, connectivity, and readout in parallel. The path to scalability is therefore a multi-disciplinary marathon, requiring co-advancements in materials science, microwave engineering, control theory, and computer science.

Cognition Reimagined: The Rise of Adaptive Intelligence Systems

The popular narrative often frames quantum advantage solely in terms of raw speed solving problems faster. While this is true for certain tasks like factoring, this perspective is reductive and obscures the technology's most transformative potential. The true revolution of quantum computing is that it provides a fundamentally new way of representing and processing information that mirrors the physical world.

The universe is fundamentally quantum mechanical, not classical. This makes simulating quantum systems—such as complex molecules for drug discovery, novel catalysts for carbon capture, or exotic materials for high-temperature superconductivity—an exponentially difficult task for classical computers. As Feynman's foundational insight suggests, the most natural way to simulate a quantum system is with another quantum system (Lloyd, 2021). A quantum computer operates under the same physical principles as the molecules it models. For example, a qubit can directly represent an electron's spin, while entanglement can naturally encode the quantum correlations between electrons in a chemical bond. Consequently, a quantum computer does not merely calculate molecular properties through abstract computation; it can be configured to emulate the quantum state of the target system, enabling its properties to be interrogated through direct quantum measurement (Google Quantum AI & Collaborators, 2020). This shift from calculation to emulation represents a fundamental paradigm shift, the core distinctions of which are summarized in Table 3.

Based on the information presented in Table 3, the distinction between classical and quantum computing emerges not merely as a difference in scale or speed, but as a fundamental divergence in computational paradigm. Classical computing, built upon deterministic bits that exist in a definitive state of 0 or 1, excels at sequential logic and data processing, forming the backbone of modern digital technology. In stark contrast, quantum computing utilizes qubits, which leverage the quantum mechanical principles of superposition and entanglement. Superposition allows a qubit to represent a combination of 0 and 1 simultaneously, meaning a system of qubits can represent a vast number of states in parallel. This inherent parallelism is further amplified by entanglement, a unique correlation where the state of one qubit is intrinsically linked to the state of another, regardless of distance, enabling coordinated operations across this expansive state space.

Theoretically, this foundational shift implies that quantum computers are not simply faster versions of classical machines but are instead specialized tools designed to tackle fundamentally different problem classes. The exponential scaling of information representation and massive parallelism suggest a potential for dramatic speedups in specific domains, such as simulating quantum mechanical systems (like molecular interactions), solving complex optimization problems, and factoring large integers—a capability with profound implications for cryptography. However, the table correctly notes that quantum computing is best viewed as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, classical computing. Its power is harnessed for problems that are intractable under the classical model, while classical architectures remain superior for the vast majority of deterministic, everyday computational tasks. Thus, the future of computation likely lies in a hybrid model, leveraging the strengths of both paradigms to solve a broader spectrum of challenges.

This shift from calculation to emulation is the paradigm shift. It promises not just incremental improvements but the ability to tackle problems that have been completely out of reach, potentially leading to breakthroughs across science and industry that are impossible to foresee with a classical mindset. The goal is not to build a faster computer for the tasks o today, but to build a different kind of computer that will allow to ask, and answer, entirely new questions about the world.

Entanglement-Enabled Processors Herald a New Era of Quantum Computing

Potential Applications: Beyond Supremacy to Utility

The true value of quantum computing lies not benchmark but in delivering quantum utility solving problems with tangible scientific or economic value that are intractable for classical systems. The applications span a range of disciplines; each leveraging the unique quantum ability to handle complexity and simulate nature.

In the realm of cryptography, Shor's algorithm presents a double-edged sword. Its ability to efficiently factor large integers would render obsolete the RSA and ECC encryption protocols that currently secure global digital communication, from online banking and e-commerce to state secrets. This imminent threat has already spurred a global initiative within the cybersecurity community to develop and standardize post-quantum cryptography (PQC) new classical encryption algorithms designed to be resistant to attacks from both classical and quantum computers. The race is on to deploy these new standards before large-scale quantum computers arrive.

Conversely, in drug discovery and materials science, the anticipated impact of quantum computation is transformative. By operating as a natural simulator of molecular and atomic interactions, quantum computers address a fundamental bottleneck: accurately modeling the quantum behavior of molecules to predict their properties, reactivity, and binding affinities scales exponentially on classical hardware, restricting simulations to small, simple systems. A fault-tolerant quantum computer could simulate complex molecules, such as those for next-generation cancer therapeutics or engineered enzymes, potentially revolutionizing the pace of drug development and enabling truly personalized medicine (Arute et al., 2020; Bauer et al., 2020). Similarly, the design of advanced batteries, high-temperature superconductors, efficient catalysts for fertilizer production, and other novel materials could be radically accelerated by the ability to model and optimize these compounds with quantum accuracy in silico prior to physical synthesis (McArdle et al., 2020).

Furthermore, quantum algorithms like the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) offer potential for dramatic improvements in logistics and supply chain optimization. Problems like the traveling salesman problem, portfolio optimization in finance, and scheduling for global shipping networks involve finding the best solution from a near-infinite number of possibilities. While not offering exponential speedups for all such problems, quantum algorithms could provide significant quadratic or polynomial improvements, saving industries billions of dollars and reducing their environmental footprint through more efficient routing and resource allocation.

The Ethical Dimension: Navigating the Quantum Threat

The power of quantum computing compels a concurrent and rigorous discourse on its ethical and security implications. The most immediate concern lies in cryptography. A cryptographically relevant quantum computer would effectively provide a master key to a significant portion of the world's presently secure digital communications and stored data. This threat is not merely theoretical; it enables "harvest now, decrypt later" attacks, where adversaries can intercept and archive encrypted data today with the intent of decrypting it once a quantum computer becomes available, posing a severe risk to information requiring long-term confidentiality (Pellet-Mary et al, 2022). Consequently, the timely migration to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is a critical imperative for global economic and national security.

Beyond cryptography, the technology could exacerbate existing inequalities. The immense cost and complexity of building and operating quantum computers mean that access to this transformative technology could initially be limited to wealthy corporations and powerful governments, creating a "quantum divide." This could concentrate immense technological and economic advantage, potentially leading to market monopolies in fields like pharmaceuticals and materials, and altering the global balance of power. Proactive policy, international cooperation on guidelines for use, and efforts to democratize access through cloud platforms will be essential to ensure the benefits of quantum computing are distributed equitably and its power is not misused.

A Realistic Roadmap to Scalable Quantum Advantage

The field is best understood by dividing its evolution into distinct eras.

We are currently in the NISQ era, characterized by devices with 50-1000 qubits that are too noisy for fault-tolerant error correction. The goal in this era is quantum utility: using error mitigation and hybrid algorithms to solve a practical problem faster or more accurately than the best classical supercomputer, even if the problem is esoteric. Demonstrations of this are expected imminently, within the next 2-5 years, likely in quantum chemistry or specialized optimization.

The next phase is the early fault-tolerant era, which will require quantum error correction to work effectively, likely with thousands of physical qubits encoding a handful of logical qubits. This could enable more robust simulations and the first truly valuable commercial applications. Most experts place these phase 10 to 15 years away, contingent on sustained progress in reducing physical error rates and improving control systems.

The final goal is the full fault-tolerant era, with millions of high-quality physical qubits supporting vast arrays of stable logical qubits to run algorithms like Shor's at scale. Forecasting the development of quantum computing is best understood by dividing its evolution into distinct technological eras, as projected in Table 4.

Based on Table 4, the projected timeline for quantum computing illustrates a multi-decade, phased evolution from current experimental devices toward a mature, transformative technology. The progression is defined not merely by an increase in the raw number of qubits, but more critically by the conquest of quantum error through advancing levels of fault tolerance. The contemporary NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) era is characterized by fragile, error-prone physical qubits, where the primary theoretical challenge is to extract useful computational results—a concept known as "quantum utility"—despite significant noise, relying on error mitigation rather than full correction.

Theoretically, this roadmap underscores that the true potential of quantum computing is locked behind the fundamental challenge of decoherence and error. The shift from the NISQ era to the Early and ultimately Full Fault-Tolerant eras represents a transition from demonstrating isolated quantum effects to building a reliable and scalable computational architecture. This is achieved through quantum error correction, which uses many error-prone physical qubits to form a single, stable "logical qubit." Therefore, the timeline is essentially a function of mastering this corrective overhead. The projected applications align directly with this increasing stability: early fault tolerance enables robust simulations of quantum chemistry, while the full-scale realization promises to execute algorithms like Shor's for factoring (threatening current cryptography) and complex quantum simulations for materials science, which are theoretically proven but practically impossible on today's noisy hardware. This staged evolution frames quantum computing not as an imminent replacement for classical computing, but as a long-term, foundational project whose ultimate capability hinges on solving profound engineering and theoretical problems in quantum information stability.

The journey to tame the "spooky" properties of the quantum world is a marathon, not a sprint. It requires sustained investment, international collaboration, and a clear-eyed understanding that the most profound revolutions are not born from haste, but from the meticulous and relentless pursuit of a transformative vision. The chips may be spooky, but the future they herald is one of unprecedented possibility, demanding careful stewardship today.

Conclusions

This study has systematically examined the viability and performance of hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, specifically the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE), as a primary strategy for leveraging current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices. Our analysis confirms that these algorithms represent a critical pathway for achieving practical quantum advantage in the near term, despite the pervasive challenges of decoherence and gate infidelity. The central objective was to evaluate how such methods mitigate hardware limitations, and our findings demonstrate that variational frameworks effectively bridge the gap between algorithmic potential and contemporary hardware constraints by outsourcing computationally demanding components to classical systems.

In this work, we analysed the core principles of NISQ-era algorithms, focusing on the VQE's application for molecular ground-state energy calculations. Through a review of recent implementations and error analysis, we determined that hybrid approaches significantly enhance computational resilience. The results indicate that while absolute fidelity remains limited, the strategic parameter optimization inherent to these algorithms enables meaningful results on today’s imperfect hardware, turning fundamental quantum phenomena like entanglement from theoretical curiosities into actionable computational resources.

The broader significance of these findings lies in their validation of a co-design philosophy for quantum computing. The results underscore that progress is not solely dependent on hardware scaling but equally on developing algorithms tailored to hardware realities. This symbiotic advancement—where algorithm design informs hardware development and vice-versa—is accelerating both applied computational science and foundational quantum research, driving innovations in control systems, error characterization, and materials science.

Future research must aggressively address the stability and scalability of these methods. Immediate priorities include developing more robust error mitigation and characterization techniques, designing problem-specific ansätze to reduce circuit depth, and creating advanced classical optimizers tailored to the noisy quantum landscape. Furthermore, as hardware evolves, exploring the integration of these hybrid algorithms with early-stage error correction will be essential for a seamless transition toward fault-tolerant quantum computing. Sustained progress will depend on continued interdisciplinary collaboration across quantum hardware, algorithmics, and information theory to fully harness the evolving potential of quantum computation.

References

Arute, F., Arya, K., Babbush, R., Bacon, D., Bardin, J. C., Barends, R., Biswas, R., Boixo, S., Brandao, F. G. S. L., Buell, D. A., Burkett, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Collins, R., Courtney, W., Dunsworth, A., Farhi, E., Foxen, B., … Martinis, J. M. (2024). Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit. Nature, 627(8004), 778–782.
Arute, F., Arya, K., Babbush, R., Bacon, D., Bardin, J. C., Barends, R., Biswas, R., Boixo, S., Brandao, F. G. S. L., Buell, D. A., Burkett, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Collins, R., Courtney, W., Dunsworth, A., Farhi, E., Foxen, B., … Martinis, J. M. (2020). Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer. Science, 369(6507), 1084–1089. [CrossRef]
Arvidsson-Shukur, D. R. M., et al. (2020). Quantum advantage in postselected metrology. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3775. [CrossRef]
Atom Computing. (2023, October 24). Atom computing announces generation 2 quantum computing platform with 1,225 qubits [Press release]. https://atom-computing.com/atom-computing-announces-generation-2-quantum-computing-platform/.
Bacon, D., Brown, K. R., & Chuang, I. L. (2023). Assessing the benefits and barriers of fault-tolerant quantum computing. PRX Quantum, 4(2), 020304. [CrossRef]
Bauer, B., Bravyi, S., Motta, M., & Kin-Lic Chan, G. (2020). Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science. Chemical Reviews, 120(22), 12685–12717. [CrossRef]
Bluvstein, D., Evered, S. J., Geim, A. A., Li, S. H., Zhou, T., Manovitz, T., ... & Lukin, M. D. (2024). Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. Nature, 626(7997), 58–65. [CrossRef]
Campbell, E. T., Terhal, B. M., & Vuillot, C. (2024). The race to fault tolerance. Nature, 626(7997), 36–37. [CrossRef]
Carroll, M., Rosenblatt, S., Jurcevic, P., Lauer, I., & Kandala, A. (2023). Superconducting qubit coherence and relaxation times across multiple fabrication iterations. Physical Review Applied, 19(4), 044072.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.044072. [CrossRef]
Cerezo, M., Arrasmith, A., Babbush, R., Benjamin, S. C., Endo, S., Fujii, K., ... & Coles, P. J. (2021). Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9), 625–644. [CrossRef]
DiVincenzo, D. P. (2000). The physical implementation of quantum computation. Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics, 48(9–11), 771–783. [CrossRef]
Feynman, R. P. (1982). Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6/7), 467–488. [CrossRef]
Gao, X., Anschuetz, E. R., Wang, S.-T., Cirac, J. I., & Lukin, M. D. (2024). Enhancing generative models via quantum correlations. Nature, 631(8019), 801–805. [CrossRef]
Google Quantum AI. (2023). Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit. Nature, 614(7949), 676–681. [CrossRef]
Grover, L. K. (1996). A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (pp. 212–219). [CrossRef]
Häner, T., Steiger, D. S., Svore, K., & Troyer, M. (2021). A software methodology for compiling quantum programs. Quantum Science and Technology, 6(2), 025001. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-9565/aaa5cc.
IBM. (2023, December 4). IBM quantum system two and the future of quantum-centric supercomputing [Press release]. https://newsroom.ibm.com/2023-12-04-IBM-Quantum-System-Two-and-the-future-of-quantum-centric-supercomputing.
IonQ. (2023). IonQ announces results for world’s strongest quantum computer [Press release]. Retrieved from https://ionq.com/news/november-8-2023-ionq-announces-results-for-worlds-strongest-quantum-computer.
Kaye, P., Laflamme, R., & Mosca, M. (2022). An introduction to quantum computing. Oxford University Press. https://files.batistalab.com/teaching/attachments/chem584/Mosca.pdf.
Kim, Y., Eddins, A., Anand, S., Wei, K. X., van den Berg, E., Rosenblatt, S., Nayfeh, H., Wu, Y., Zaletel, M., Temme, K., & Kandala, A. (2023). Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance. Nature, 618(7965), 500–505. [CrossRef]
Krantz, P., Kjaergaard, M., Yan, F., Orlando, T. P., Gustavsson, S., & Oliver, W. D. (2019). A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits. Applied Physics Reviews, 6(2), 021318. [CrossRef]
Krinner, S., Lacroix, N., Remm, A., Di Paolo, A., Genois, E., Leroux, C., Hellings, C., Lazar, S., Swiadek, F., Herrmann, J., Norris, G. J., Andersen, C. K., Müller, M., Blais, A., Wallraff, A., & Eichler, C. (2022). Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code. Nature, 605(7911), 669–674. [CrossRef]
Madsen, L. S., Laudenbach, F., Askarani, M. F., Rortais, F., Vincent, T., Bulmer, J. F. F., ... & Lavoie, J. (2022). Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor. Nature, 606(7912), 75–81. [CrossRef]
McArdle, S., Endo, S., Aspuru-Guzik, A., Benjamin, S. C., & Yuan, X. (2020). Quantum computational chemistry. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(1), 015003. [CrossRef]
McKinsey & Company. (2024). Quantum computing: An emerging ecosystem and industry use cases. https://www.mckinsey.com/quantum-computing.
Moore, S. K. (2022, April 13). Gordon Moore: "Moore's Law is dead." IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/gordon-moore-moores-law-is-dead.
Mosca, M. (2018). Cybersecurity in an era with quantum computers: Will we be ready? IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(5), 38–41. [CrossRef]
Musser, G. (2022). Spooky action at a distance: The phenomenon that reimagines space and time and what it means for black holes, the big bang, and theories of everything. Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Spooky-Action-at-a-Distance%3A-The-Phenomenon-That-It-Musser/7325d2dcd01b10cd401ea73fb3ffedc5bca2bd81.
Pellet-Mary, A., Stehlé, D., & Wallet, A. (2022). Quantum attacks on classical proof systems: The hardness of quantum rewinding. In Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2022 (pp. 126–156). Springer, Cham. [CrossRef]
Pino, J. M., Dreiling, J. M., Figgatt, C., Gaebler, J. P., Moses, S. A., Baldwin, C. H., Foss-Feig, M., Hayes, D., Mayer, K., Ryan-Anderson, C., & Niroula, P. (2024). Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02280.
Scholkmann, F. (2021). The emergence of quantum mechanics: A review. Physics, 3(2), 225-245. [CrossRef]
Shalf, J. (2020). The future of computing beyond Moore's Law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 378(2166). [CrossRef]
Shor, P. W. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (pp. 124–134). IEEE. [CrossRef]
Susskind, L., & Friedman, A. (2020). Quantum mechanics: The theoretical minimum. Basic Books. https://quantumatlas.ir/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Quantum-Mechanics-The-Theoretical-Minimum.pdf.
Temme, K., Bravyi, S., & Gambetta, J. M. (2017). Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. Physical Review Letters, 119(18), 180509. [CrossRef]
Wu, Y., Bao, W.-S., Cao, S., Chen, F., Chen, M.-C., Chen, X., Chung, T.-H., Deng, H., Du, Y., Fan, D., Gong, M., Guo, C., Guo, C., Guo, S., Han, L., Hong, L., Huang, H.-L., Huo, Y.-H., Li, L., … Zhu, W. (2021). Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor. Physical Review Letters, 127(18), Article 180501. [CrossRef]

Table 2. Comparison of leading quantum computing hardware modalities.

Platform	Key Players	Key Strengths	Key Challenges	Current Scale (Qubit Count)
Superconducting	Google, IBM, Rigetti	Rapidly scalable, fast gate speeds	Short coherence times, high error rates, cryogenics	50 – 400+
Trapped Ions	IonQ, Quantinuum	Long coherence times, high gate fidelity, qubit uniformity	Slower gate speeds, scaling complexity	20 – 40
Photonic	Xanadu	Room-temperature operation, robust qubits	Challenges with deterministic gates and scaling	(Measured by number of modes)
Topological	Microsoft	Theoretical inherent error resistance	Not yet experimentally demonstrated	N/A

Source: Gambetta (2022); IonQ (2023); Madsen et al. (2022).

Table 3. Classical vs. Quantum Computing Paradigms.

Aspect	Classical Computing	Quantum Computing	Implication
Information Unit	Bit (0 or 1)	Qubit (Superposition of 0 and 1)	Exponential scaling of information representation.
State Representation	One state at a time	Many states simultaneously (Superposition)	Massive inherent parallelism.
Qubit Correlation	Independent	Entangled	Enables complex, coordinated operations on the parallel states; the source of quantum speedup.
Best Use Case	Deterministic logic, data processing, most everyday tasks	Simulating quantum systems, optimization, factoring large numbers	Not a replacement, but a complement. Solves classes of problems that are fundamentally intractable classically.

Source: Original development based on IBM (2023).

Table 4. Projected Timeline and Milestones for Quantum Computing.

Era	Timescale (Estimated)	Key Characteristics	Primary Applications & Goals
NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum)	Present – 5 years	50-1000 physical qubits; high error rates; no fault tolerance; reliance on error mitigation	Demonstrating quantum utility; algorithm development; hardware benchmarking; exploring use cases
Early Fault-Tolerant	10 – 15 years	1k – 10k physical qubits; first effective quantum error correction; stable logical qubits	Robust quantum simulation; early commercial optimization; breaking weak encryption
Full Fault-Tolerant	20+ years	Millions of physical qubits; full-scale error correction; scalable logical quantum computer	Breaking RSA encryption; revolutionizing drug discovery & materials science; full-scale AI

Source: IBM and McKinsey & Company, 2024.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.