Skip to content
QUBITWIRE FIELD GUIDE 1801 → 2026

Quantum computing,
made visible.

What can a quantum computer tell us about a molecule? Follow one experiment, then trace the discoveries that made it possible.

Inside one experiment H₂ / Hydrogen

What happens when two hydrogen atoms move apart?

Each dot marks a hydrogen nucleus. Researchers estimated the energy at different spacings to find where the molecule was most stable.
  1. 01
    Set the distance. An ordinary computer turns the molecular model into instructions.
  2. 02
    Run the model. The processor uses those instructions to control its qubits, the units that carry quantum information.
  3. 03
    Estimate the energy. An ordinary computer combines measurements from repeated runs.

Ordinary computers can solve this small example too. Read the experiment

Short story · 22 milestones 6 chapters No background needed

THE FULL HISTORY

The quantum computing archive

Explore 217 milestones in chronological order. Each entry links to its sources and explains what its date records.

Reading options Explanations, animation and print
Quiet reading & print Read every explanation and source in one document.
READING DEPTH

Choose how the “Inside the idea” explanations open. You can open or close any of them as you read.

Events are spaced for reading. Gaps do not represent equal periods of time.

Bit
A unit of ordinary information with a value of 0 or 1.
Qubit
A unit of quantum information. Reading it in the 0 and 1 basis produces one of those two results.
The goal
Use quantum operations to solve a particular problem more efficiently than the best ordinary alternative.
Revisit the opening experiment
Search the full history 217 sourced milestones
Return to the short story

Full history · 217 events in chronological order

PART 01 1801–1964

What makes the quantum world different?

Begin with waves, discrete energy and the probabilities of measurement. These are clues about nature, long before they become ingredients for a computer.

  1. 1801Presentation
    Scientific idea

    Young explains how light waves can cancel

    Light added to light can make a dark band. Thomas Young explained how two waves reinforce each other where their peaks line up and cancel where a peak meets a trough.

    Why it mattered

    Quantum algorithms also rely on reinforcement and cancellation. What combines in a quantum circuit is an amplitude, a quantity used to calculate the chance of a particular result.

    Still to solveYoung was describing ordinary light waves in his 1801 lecture. The paper appeared in 1802, about a century before the development of quantum mechanics.

    In plain EnglishInterference The reinforcement or cancellation that happens when wave contributions combine.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEThe same waves. A different result.
    The same waves. A different result.ALIGNED+=Wave AWave BReinforcementOPPOSITE+=Wave AWave BCancellation

    Aligned waves reinforce. Opposite waves cancel. Quantum algorithms use a related pattern of reinforcement and cancellation to shape the chances of results.

    Classical-wave analogy, not experimental data.
    Inside the idea Where does a dark fringe come from?

    At one point on a screen, equal light waves arriving half a cycle apart have opposite electric fields. Their fields add to zero there. Elsewhere they can add together. Young’s example concerns light waves; a quantum circuit instead adds amplitudes for a particular measurement outcome.

    OpenStax on wave interference ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Young presents a wave account of light. Young reads his Bakerian lecture on light and colours to the Royal Society.

    How to read this date: 12 November 1801 records the presentation date.

    Scope & limitations: This is the lecture date, not the invention of quantum mechanics. The Philosophical Transactions paper followed in 1802.

    The next questionA wave can reinforce or cancel another wave. Much later, physicists would discover that nature needed more than this classical picture.

  2. 1859Historical context
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Kirchhoff frames the black-body problem

    Hot objects emit characteristic spectra.

    Why it mattered

    Black-body radiation later motivates quantization.

    Keep in mindClassical precursor, not quantum computing.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Kirchhoff frames the black-body problem. Kirchhoff defines an ideal radiation absorber and emitter.

    How to read this date: 1859 records the historical context date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Classical precursor, not quantum computing.

  3. 1865Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Maxwell publishes electromagnetic field theory

    Light belongs to the same physical family as electricity and magnetism.

    Why it mattered

    Provides the classical framework against which quantum optics develops.

    Keep in mindArchive manuscript dates to 1864; the cited full publication is 1865.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Maxwell publishes electromagnetic field theory. Maxwell publishes his dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field.

    How to read this date: 1865 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Archive manuscript dates to 1864; the cited full publication is 1865.

  4. 1877Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Boltzmann connects entropy and probability

    Many microscopic arrangements can produce the same visible condition.

    Why it mattered

    Links microscopic arrangements to macroscopic behavior.

    Keep in mindThe cited source is a later translation of the 1877 paper.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Boltzmann connects entropy and probability. Boltzmann develops a probabilistic account of thermal equilibrium and entropy.

    How to read this date: 1877 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The cited source is a later translation of the 1877 paper.

  5. 1887Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Hertz observes a light-induced electrical effect

    Light can help release electrical charge from matter.

    Why it mattered

    Introduces the photoelectric puzzle later addressed by Einstein.

    Keep in mindObservation and quantum explanation occurred in different years.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Hertz observes a light-induced electrical effect. Hertz observes ultraviolet light assisting electrical sparks.

    How to read this date: 1887 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Observation and quantum explanation occurred in different years.

  6. 1897Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Thomson identifies the electron

    Atoms contain smaller electrically charged constituents.

    Continue the main story in this chapter ↗
    Why it mattered

    Establishes a controllable constituent later used in quantum devices.

    Keep in mindA discovery of matter structure, not of a qubit.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Thomson identifies the electron. Thomson shows that cathode rays consist of particles now called electrons.

    How to read this date: 1897 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: A discovery of matter structure, not of a qubit.

  7. 1900Presentation
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Planck presents a successful radiation formula

    A formula describes the measured pattern.

    Why it mattered

    Empirical success precedes the quantization argument.

    Keep in mindDistinct from December's derivation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Planck presents a successful radiation formula. Planck presents a formula matching black-body observations.

    How to read this date: 19 October 1900 records the presentation date.

    Scope & limitations: Distinct from December's derivation.

  8. 1900Presentation
    Scientific idea

    Planck connects the size of an energy step to frequency

    Why does a hot object emit more light at some frequencies than at others? Max Planck calculated its spectrum by counting energy in steps. The higher the frequency of an oscillator, the larger each energy step.

    Why it mattered

    Doubling the frequency doubled the energy in each step. It gave physicists a way to connect a measurable spectrum to a microscopic model.

    Still to solvePlanck was explaining heat radiation. His original proposal was not yet the modern picture of light particles or quantum computers.

    In plain EnglishQuantum A discrete amount; “quanta” is the plural. Planck connected its energy to frequency.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEEnergy changes in steps.
    Energy changes in steps.A MODEL WITH DISCRETE LEVELS0123One stepMoreenergyOnly certain changes are allowed

    In Planck’s oscillator model, energy is exchanged in discrete amounts. The size of each step depends on frequency.

    A teaching ladder, not every atom’s energy spectrum.
    Inside the idea Are all energy steps the same height?

    Planck’s energy element is h times the oscillator’s frequency, where h is Planck’s constant. Double the frequency and the element doubles. This was a way to calculate the spectrum of hot objects. Einstein later asked whether light itself could transfer energy in packets.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Planck introduces energy quanta. Planck derives the radiation law using discrete energy elements.

    How to read this date: 14 December 1900 records the presentation date.

    Scope & limitations: This dates the 14 December presentation. The expanded paper followed in 1901; the model was not yet modern photon theory.

    The next questionDiscrete energy exchange was one clue. The next challenge was finding rules that could predict the results of experiments.

  9. 1905Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Einstein proposes light quanta

    Brighter light and higher-frequency light change different aspects of emission.

    Why it mattered

    Extends quantization to the interaction of light and matter.

    Keep in mindHis 1921 Nobel Prize was awarded in 1922.

    Inside the idea Why can brighter light still fail to release electrons?

    In the simple one-photon picture, one electron absorbs energy from one photon. The photon’s energy depends on frequency. Increasing the number of low-energy photons does not make each photon energetic enough to eject an electron.

    APS on Einstein’s photoelectric explanation ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Einstein proposes light quanta. Einstein explains the photoelectric effect using energy packets tied to light frequency.

    How to read this date: 1905 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: His 1921 Nobel Prize was awarded in 1922.

  10. 1908Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Helium is liquefied

    Very cold environments reveal otherwise hidden material behavior.

    Why it mattered

    Opens access to temperatures important for later quantum hardware.

    Keep in mindCryogenic capability is an enabling technology.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Helium is liquefied. Kamerlingh Onnes produces liquid helium.

    How to read this date: 1908 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Cryogenic capability is an enabling technology.

  11. 1911Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Superconductivity is discovered

    Electrical current can flow through a superconducting material without resistance.

    Why it mattered

    Begins the material lineage of superconducting quantum circuits.

    Keep in mindSuperconductivity alone does not constitute a quantum processor.

    Inside the idea How far is a superconductor from a qubit?

    Cold mercury carried current without electrical resistance. To make a qubit, engineers also need two states that they can select, manipulate and distinguish in a measurement. The Josephson junction later supplied a crucial circuit element.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Superconductivity is discovered. Mercury loses its measured electrical resistance at very low temperature.

    How to read this date: 1911 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Superconductivity alone does not constitute a quantum processor.

  12. 1911Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Rutherford publishes the nuclear atom

    Most atomic volume is not occupied by the nucleus.

    Why it mattered

    Sets up the atomic-structure problem addressed by quantum models.

    Keep in mindThe scattering experiments preceded the 1911 interpretation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Rutherford publishes the nuclear atom. Rutherford explains scattering results through a small, dense atomic nucleus.

    How to read this date: May 1911 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The scattering experiments preceded the 1911 interpretation.

  13. 1913Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bohr proposes quantized atomic levels

    Atoms exchange specific amounts of energy when their state changes.

    Why it mattered

    Connects atomic spectra with discrete quantum states.

    Keep in mindOrbit pictures are historical models, not literal modern electron trajectories.

    Inside the idea Why does hydrogen emit particular colors?

    In Bohr’s historical model, an atom can occupy only certain energies. Moving between them exchanges energy equal to the difference, giving light of a particular frequency. Modern quantum states describe these energies without requiring an electron to follow a miniature planetary orbit.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bohr proposes quantized atomic levels. Bohr models hydrogen using allowed electron energies and transitions between them.

    How to read this date: 1913 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Orbit pictures are historical models, not literal modern electron trajectories.

  14. 1914Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Franck and Hertz probe atomic excitation

    Atoms absorb particular energy increments instead of every possible amount.

    Why it mattered

    Provides experimental evidence for quantized atomic energy changes.

    Keep in mindEvidence for discrete excitation energies does not validate every detail of Bohr's atomic model.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Franck and Hertz probe atomic excitation. Electron collisions reveal discrete excitation energies in mercury atoms.

    How to read this date: 1914 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Evidence for discrete excitation energies does not validate every detail of Bohr's atomic model.

  15. 1916Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Millikan confirms the photoelectric relation

    A theory becomes stronger when careful measurements reproduce its predictions.

    Why it mattered

    Separates experimental agreement from immediate acceptance of photon interpretations.

    Keep in mindAgreement with the equation did not settle every interpretation at once.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Millikan confirms the photoelectric relation. Millikan's measurements precisely confirm Einstein's photoelectric law.

    How to read this date: 1916 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Agreement with the equation did not settle every interpretation at once.

  16. 1922Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Stern and Gerlach split an atomic beam

    A quantum measurement can give separated outcomes rather than a continuous spread.

    Why it mattered

    Makes quantized measurement outcomes visible.

    Keep in mindElectron spin was not the original interpretation; exact-day accounts differ.

    Inside the idea What did the detector actually record?

    A magnetic-field gradient sent a beam of silver atoms into two separated groups. The apparatus registered positions on a detector. The later spin description explains the two possible projections along the chosen axis; it does not depict a little sphere turning in space.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Stern and Gerlach split an atomic beam. A silver-atom beam separates into discrete components in a magnetic-field gradient.

    How to read this date: February 1922 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Electron spin was not the original interpretation; exact-day accounts differ.

  17. 1923Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Compton publishes the scattering explanation

    A photon can transfer part of its energy during a collision.

    Why it mattered

    Strengthens the quantum description of light-matter interactions.

    Keep in mindThis is the paper publication date, not his Nobel year.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Compton publishes the scattering explanation. Compton explains an X-ray wavelength shift using energy and momentum transfer to electrons.

    How to read this date: 1 May 1923 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This is the paper publication date, not his Nobel year.

  18. 1924Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bose develops quantum statistics for light

    Identical quantum particles are counted differently from distinguishable objects.

    Why it mattered

    Introduces a quantum way of counting indistinguishable particles.

    Keep in mindBose worked in Dhaka, then part of British India and today the capital of Bangladesh.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Bose develops quantum statistics for light. Bose derives the Planck distribution statistically and sends his paper to Einstein.

    How to read this date: 1924 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Bose worked in Dhaka, then part of British India and today the capital of Bangladesh.

  19. 1924Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    De Broglie proposes matter waves

    Particles can produce interference patterns under suitable conditions.

    Why it mattered

    Expands wave-particle reasoning beyond light.

    Keep in mindThe proposal preceded the later electron-diffraction experiments.

    Inside the idea What could test a wave description of matter?

    De Broglie associated momentum with wavelength: greater momentum corresponds to shorter wavelength. A crystal can act as a regularly spaced scatterer. Later electron diffraction tested the prediction by recording a pattern of arrivals across many electrons.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: De Broglie proposes matter waves. De Broglie proposes that particles such as electrons also have wave properties.

    How to read this date: 1924 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The proposal preceded the later electron-diffraction experiments.

  20. 1925Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Einstein develops the bosonic-gas theory

    Many bosons can occupy the same quantum state.

    Why it mattered

    Provides the basis for Bose-Einstein condensation.

    Keep in mindThis is theoretical development, decades before laboratory condensation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Einstein develops the bosonic-gas theory. Einstein extends Bose's reasoning in papers spanning 1924 and 1925.

    How to read this date: 1925 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: This is theoretical development, decades before laboratory condensation.

  21. 1925Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Heisenberg develops matrix mechanics

    Quantum behavior requires unfamiliar mathematical rules.

    Why it mattered

    A mathematical framework for quantum predictions.

    Keep in mindHeisenberg proposed the new rules. Max Born and Pascual Jordan recognized and developed their matrix form.

    Inside the idea Can changing the order change the answer?

    In the matrix formulation developed by Heisenberg, Born and Jordan, multiplying two quantities in one order can give a different result from multiplying them in reverse. Quantum gates provide a modern example: swapping two successive operations can change a circuit’s final state.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Heisenberg develops matrix mechanics. Heisenberg's framework becomes matrix mechanics through work with Born and Jordan.

    How to read this date: 1925 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Heisenberg proposed the new rules. Max Born and Pascual Jordan recognized and developed their matrix form.

  22. 1925Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Pauli formulates the exclusion principle

    Certain particles cannot occupy the same complete quantum state.

    Why it mattered

    Explains essential structure in atoms and materials.

    Keep in mindThis rule applies to identical fermions, not to all particles.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Pauli formulates the exclusion principle. Pauli states that electrons in an atom cannot share identical sets of quantum numbers.

    How to read this date: 1925 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: This rule applies to identical fermions, not to all particles.

  23. 1926Publication
    Scientific idea

    Born connects the wave equation to a detector reading

    In a collision experiment, an electron can scatter in several directions. Max Born interpreted the wave calculation as a prediction of how likely each direction was. Repeating the experiment could test that prediction.

    Why it mattered

    A qubit follows the same rule. To predict how often a particular answer will appear, take the squared magnitude of the amplitude for that answer.

    Still to solveProbabilistic results do not let us read every possible answer at once. Measurement returns an outcome, not the whole mathematical description.

    In plain EnglishMeasurement An interaction that produces a recorded outcome, such as reading a qubit as 0 or 1.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEOne electron, one recorded direction.
    One electron, one recorded direction.ELECTRON SCATTERINGIncoming electronTargetDetector 1Detector 2Detector 3Each detected electron adds one count.

    An electron can scatter in different directions. Each detection adds a single entry to the record. Repeating the preparation builds a pattern that can be compared with Born’s prediction.

    Schematic detector positions. The lines mark possible outcomes and do not give their probabilities.
    Inside the idea What do repeated measurements estimate?

    For an ideal qubit measured in the 0/1 basis, each outcome’s probability is the squared magnitude of its amplitude. To estimate those probabilities, prepare the qubit the same way for each trial. Measuring the same qubit again immediately is a different experiment.

    IBM Quantum on states and measurement ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Born gives the wavefunction a statistical meaning. Born links wavefunctions to measurement probabilities.

    How to read this date: 1926 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Amplitudes are not probabilities.

    The next questionA rule for measurement also raises a question: what happens when two systems must be described together?

  24. 1926Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Schrodinger develops wave mechanics

    His equation predicts a state's changes.

    Why it mattered

    Enables calculations of quantum-state evolution.

    Keep in mindWavefunctions are not simply visible material waves.

    Inside the idea What evolves before a measurement?

    Given a starting state and a Hamiltonian describing an isolated system’s dynamics, Schrödinger’s equation determines how that state evolves. The Born rule then turns the state into probabilities for the chosen measurement. Knowing that evolution need not determine which individual result you will see.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Schrodinger develops wave mechanics. Schrodinger publishes wave mechanics.

    How to read this date: 1926 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Wavefunctions are not simply visible material waves.

  25. 1927Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Heisenberg states an uncertainty relation

    Some paired quantities cannot both have arbitrarily sharp values.

    Why it mattered

    Clarifies a fundamental feature of quantum states.

    Keep in mindThis is not merely an explanation based on poor instruments.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Heisenberg states an uncertainty relation. Heisenberg identifies limits on simultaneous specification of certain paired observables.

    How to read this date: 1927 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: This is not merely an explanation based on poor instruments.

  26. 1927Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Davisson and Germer publish electron diffraction

    An electron beam can form patterns associated with waves.

    Why it mattered

    Tests the matter-wave description experimentally.

    Keep in mindThis paper is one strand of independently developed electron-diffraction evidence.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Davisson and Germer publish electron diffraction. Electron scattering from nickel reveals diffraction structure.

    How to read this date: 1 December 1927 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This paper is one strand of independently developed electron-diffraction evidence.

  27. 1928Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Dirac unites electron quantum theory and relativity

    Quantum theory must also work for fast-moving particles.

    Why it mattered

    Extends the theory beyond the nonrelativistic framework.

    Keep in mindDirac published the theory in 1928. Carl Anderson observed the positron in 1932.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Dirac unites electron quantum theory and relativity. Dirac introduces a relativistic quantum equation for the electron.

    How to read this date: 1928 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Dirac published the theory in 1928. Carl Anderson observed the positron in 1932.

  28. 1935Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen challenge completeness

    Two separated systems can have linked measurement predictions.

    Why it mattered

    Makes distant quantum correlations a central scientific problem.

    Keep in mindThe paper argues a conceptual position; it does not demonstrate faster-than-light messaging.

    Inside the idea What belongs to the pair?

    An entangled pair can have a definite joint relationship even when each individual outcome is uncertain. EPR asked what that implies for the completeness of quantum mechanics. Bell later turned a related question into a test of correlations between measurements.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen challenge completeness. EPR use correlated systems to question whether quantum mechanics gives a complete account of reality.

    How to read this date: 15 May 1935 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The paper argues a conceptual position; it does not demonstrate faster-than-light messaging.

  29. 1935Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Schrodinger analyzes entangled systems

    Knowing a joint state is different from knowing two independent states.

    Why it mattered

    Helps establish entanglement as a distinctive quantum feature.

    Keep in mindThe journal published the paper in 1935. The 2008 date on its website marks its online appearance.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Schrodinger analyzes entangled systems. Schrodinger examines probability relations for separated systems described by a shared state.

    How to read this date: October 1935 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The journal published the paper in 1935. The 2008 date on its website marks its online appearance.

  30. 1936Manuscript submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Turing submits his computability paper

    An abstract machine makes precise what an algorithm can do.

    Why it mattered

    Supplies a classical benchmark for later quantum computation theory.

    Keep in mindSubmission is in 1936; this publisher lists the journal publication in 1937.

    Inside the idea What does it mean to program a machine?

    Turing described an ideal machine that reads a symbol, follows a rule and moves on a tape. A universal machine can read an encoded description of another machine and simulate it. The idea separates the instructions for a calculation from the material used to build a device.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Turing submits his computability paper. Turing submits the paper defining a machine-based approach to computability.

    How to read this date: 28 May 1936 records the manuscript submission date.

    Scope & limitations: Submission is in 1936; this publisher lists the journal publication in 1937.

  31. 1937Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Rabi analyzes driven spin transitions

    An oscillating field can drive a quantum system between states.

    Why it mattered

    Builds theoretical tools for resonant quantum control.

    Keep in mindA theoretical publication, separate from the subsequent beam experiment.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Rabi analyzes driven spin transitions. Rabi calculates transitions of angular-momentum systems in a rotating magnetic field.

    How to read this date: 15 April 1937 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A theoretical publication, separate from the subsequent beam experiment.

  32. 1938Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Rabi's group demonstrates beam magnetic resonance

    Matching a drive frequency to a transition changes the detected beam.

    Why it mattered

    Demonstrates controlled transitions for precision measurement.

    Keep in mindThe experiment dates to 1938; the detailed paper followed in 1939.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Rabi's group demonstrates beam magnetic resonance. Rabi and colleagues perform a successful molecular-beam magnetic-resonance experiment.

    How to read this date: 1938 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The experiment dates to 1938; the detailed paper followed in 1939.

  33. 1946Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Purcell, Torrey and Pound report nuclear resonance

    Atomic nuclei can respond selectively to radio-frequency fields.

    Why it mattered

    Begins a major experimental lineage later used for NMR computing.

    Keep in mindIndependent nuclear-induction work also appears in 1946.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Purcell, Torrey and Pound report nuclear resonance. A paper reports resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid.

    How to read this date: 1 January 1946 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Independent nuclear-induction work also appears in 1946.

  34. 1946Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bloch publishes nuclear induction theory

    A population of spins can create a measurable radio-frequency signal.

    Why it mattered

    Connects spin dynamics with electrical readout.

    Keep in mindFelix Bloch and his collaborators at Stanford pursued this approach independently of Edward Purcell’s group at Harvard.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bloch publishes nuclear induction theory. Bloch describes how driven nuclear polarization produces observable induction signals.

    How to read this date: 1 October 1946 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Felix Bloch and his collaborators at Stanford pursued this approach independently of Edward Purcell’s group at Harvard.

  35. 1948Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Shannon publishes a mathematical theory of communication

    Information can be measured and communication limits calculated.

    Why it mattered

    Provides the classical reference point for quantum information theory.

    Keep in mindThis work concerns classical information.

    Inside the idea How can information have a unit?

    For two equally likely outcomes, seeing which occurred resolves one bit of uncertainty. When one outcome is much more likely, the average uncertainty is smaller. Shannon’s quantity depends on the probabilities of the alternatives, independent of what their messages mean.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Shannon publishes a mathematical theory of communication. Shannon develops a quantitative theory of information and noisy communication.

    How to read this date: July 1948 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: This work concerns classical information.

  36. 1950Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Hahn publishes spin echoes

    A carefully timed pulse can reverse some accumulated phase spread.

    Why it mattered

    Introduces a lasting approach to controlling dephasing.

    Keep in mindAn echo does not remove every form of noise or energy loss.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Hahn publishes spin echoes. Hahn shows how pulse sequences produce refocused nuclear-spin signals.

    How to read this date: 15 November 1950 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: An echo does not remove every form of noise or energy loss.

  37. 1952Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bohm presents a hidden-variable interpretation

    The same experimental predictions can be discussed through different conceptual accounts.

    Why it mattered

    Clarifies that mathematical predictions and interpretations are distinct.

    Keep in mindThis is an interpretation of quantum theory, not a separately verified physical mechanism.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bohm presents a hidden-variable interpretation. Bohm presents an alternative interpretation reproducing standard quantum predictions in its domain.

    How to read this date: 15 January 1952 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This is an interpretation of quantum theory, not a separately verified physical mechanism.

  38. 1954Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    The ammonia maser operates

    Stimulated emission can create coordinated electromagnetic radiation.

    Why it mattered

    Enables coherent-radiation technology.

    Keep in mindThe device amplified microwaves. A laser uses the same principle at much shorter wavelengths.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: The ammonia maser operates. Townes and colleagues obtain microwave amplification and generation by stimulated emission.

    How to read this date: 1954 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The device amplified microwaves. A laser uses the same principle at much shorter wavelengths.

  39. 1957Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Everett publishes the relative-state formulation

    A description of a subsystem can depend on its relation to the rest.

    Why it mattered

    Adds an influential interpretation of measurement.

    Keep in mindThe formulation is not experimental proof of parallel universes.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Everett publishes the relative-state formulation. Everett publishes a relative-state approach to quantum mechanics.

    How to read this date: 1 July 1957 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The formulation is not experimental proof of parallel universes.

  40. 1957Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    BCS theory explains conventional superconductivity

    Collective behavior of paired electrons differs from independent electrons.

    Why it mattered

    Explains a material foundation of superconducting circuits.

    Keep in mindBCS theory describes conventional superconductivity; it does not explain every superconducting material.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: BCS theory explains conventional superconductivity. BCS theory describes a superconducting state involving paired electrons.

    How to read this date: 1 December 1957 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: BCS theory describes conventional superconductivity; it does not explain every superconducting material.

  41. 1958Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Schawlow and Townes propose the optical maser

    The same amplification principle can extend to visible light.

    Why it mattered

    Provides a blueprint for laser development.

    Keep in mindProposal and working laser demonstration have separate dates.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Schawlow and Townes propose the optical maser. Schawlow and Townes publish a route from masers to optical and infrared operation.

    How to read this date: 1958 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Proposal and working laser demonstration have separate dates.

  42. 1959Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Aharonov and Bohm highlight quantum phase

    Paths can acquire different phases and change interference outcomes.

    Why it mattered

    Shows why phase is physically consequential.

    Keep in mindA proposal is not the same record as a later experimental verification.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Aharonov and Bohm highlight quantum phase. Aharonov and Bohm predict effects of electromagnetic potentials on quantum interference.

    How to read this date: 1 August 1959 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A proposal is not the same record as a later experimental verification.

  43. 1960Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Maiman demonstrates a working laser

    A laser creates a controlled beam using stimulated emission.

    Why it mattered

    Provides a tool central to many later quantum experiments.

    Keep in mindLasers are enabling technology, not quantum processors by themselves.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Maiman demonstrates a working laser. Maiman demonstrates a ruby laser at Hughes Research Laboratories.

    How to read this date: May 1960 records the experiment date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Lasers are enabling technology, not quantum processors by themselves.

  44. 1961Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Landauer links information erasure and heat

    Discarding information is a physical operation.

    Why it mattered

    Establishes that information processing has physical consequences.

    Keep in mindThe familiar erasure bound requires stated thermodynamic assumptions.

    Inside the idea Why does resetting a bit have a cost?

    Resetting either 0 or 1 to the same value discards which input you had. For an initially unbiased bit in the ideal thermal setting, the minimum heat released to a reservoir at absolute temperature T is kT ln 2, where k is Boltzmann’s constant. Actual devices can dissipate much more.

    APS on the Landauer limit ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Landauer links information erasure and heat. Landauer connects logical irreversibility with physical dissipation.

    How to read this date: July 1961 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The familiar erasure bound requires stated thermodynamic assumptions.

  45. 1962Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Josephson predicts superconducting tunnelling effects

    Quantum behavior can link two superconductors through a thin barrier.

    Why it mattered

    Establishes a component used in later superconducting qubits.

    Keep in mindThe cited event is the prediction, not experimental confirmation.

    Inside the idea How can a thin barrier become a circuit element?

    Josephson predicted that a supercurrent can tunnel between superconductors separated by a thin barrier. In later qubit circuits the junction provides nonlinearity, making it possible to drive one energy transition selectively. The original proposal described a junction, decades before those devices.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Josephson predicts superconducting tunnelling effects. Josephson publishes predictions for coupled superconductors separated by a barrier.

    How to read this date: 1 July 1962 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The cited event is the prediction, not experimental confirmation.

  46. 1964Publication
    Scientific idea

    Bell gives experimenters a way to test entanglement

    Could two distant particles simply carry a shared set of instructions for how to respond? John Bell showed that such local explanations obey a limit on how often the answers can agree across different measurement settings. For certain entangled states, quantum theory predicts correlations beyond that limit.

    Why it mattered

    Seeing two matching results is easy to explain with ordinary shared information. Comparing results at different settings lets experimenters test a stronger prediction.

    Still to solveBell supplied the theoretical test; experiments followed. Violating a Bell inequality does not create a faster-than-light communication method.

    In plain EnglishEntanglement A shared quantum state that cannot be described as independent states of its parts, even allowing ordinary randomness.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEOne shared state. Separate measurements.
    One shared state. Separate measurements.Prepare a shared stateABMeasureseparatelyCompare ordinary records

    Entanglement can produce correlations beyond local hidden-variable explanations. The results must still be compared through ordinary communication.

    Entanglement cannot send a controllable faster-than-light message.
    Inside the idea How can correlations test an explanation?

    Two experimenters choose settings and later compare their records. Local hidden-variable models impose bounds on how their outcomes can correlate under the test’s assumptions. Quantum predictions can exceed those bounds. Each observer still needs the other’s records to see the relationship.

    IBM Quantum’s worked Bell test ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bell derives a testable constraint. Bell publishes an inequality separating local hidden-variable predictions from some quantum predictions.

    How to read this date: 1 November 1964 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The bound depends on local hidden-variable assumptions. Its violation does not enable faster-than-light communication.

    The next questionThe rules were becoming testable. A different question would follow: could people use those rules to process information?

PART 02 1965–1993

Could nature become a new kind of computer?

The question changes from explaining the physical world to using it. A proposal for simulation grows into a model of programmable quantum computation.

  1. 1969Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    CHSH formulate an experimentally useful Bell test

    Choose measurement settings and compare their correlations against a bound.

    Why it mattered

    Bridges foundational theory and measurement.

    Keep in mindThe authors proposed a test in 1969. Their paper includes a correction published in 1970.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: CHSH formulate an experimentally useful Bell test. CHSH generalize Bell's result into a proposal for realizable photon-correlation experiments.

    How to read this date: 13 October 1969 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The authors proposed a test in 1969. Their paper includes a correction published in 1970.

  2. 1970Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Ashkin traps particles using light

    Light carries momentum that can move and confine matter.

    Why it mattered

    Establishes a precursor to optical trapping approaches.

    Keep in mindThe experiment uses particles; later atom trapping is a separate development.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Ashkin traps particles using light. Radiation pressure accelerates and traps microscopic particles.

    How to read this date: 26 January 1970 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The experiment uses particles; later atom trapping is a separate development.

  3. 1972Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Freedman and Clauser report a Bell-inequality violation

    Experiments can distinguish competing predictions about correlated particles.

    Why it mattered

    Provides important experimental support for quantum correlations.

    Keep in mindEarly experiments retained loopholes addressed by later work.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Freedman and Clauser report a Bell-inequality violation. Photon-polarization correlations violate the tested local hidden-variable restriction.

    How to read this date: 3 April 1972 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Early experiments retained loopholes addressed by later work.

  4. 1973Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Holevo bounds accessible classical information

    Encoding a quantum state and learning its information are different tasks.

    Why it mattered

    Constrains claims about how much classical information quantum states reveal.

    Keep in mindA large state description does not imply all amplitudes can be read out.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Holevo bounds accessible classical information. Holevo derives bounds on information obtained from quantum communication.

    How to read this date: 1973 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: A large state description does not imply all amplitudes can be read out.

  5. 1973Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bennett shows how computation can be reversible

    A calculation can be organized so earlier steps can be reconstructed.

    Why it mattered

    Connects useful computing with reduced logical erasure.

    Keep in mindLogical reversibility alone does not eliminate all practical energy costs.

    Inside the idea How can a calculation clean up after itself?

    A reversible step keeps enough information to reconstruct its input. Bennett’s construction keeps intermediate results, preserves the requested output, then runs the intermediate steps backward to clear the work space. This links the logic of a program to what it needs to erase.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bennett shows how computation can be reversible. Bennett constructs reversible computation that removes intermediate history while preserving input and output.

    How to read this date: November 1973 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Logical reversibility alone does not eliminate all practical energy costs.

  6. 1975Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Laser-cooling proposals target atoms and ions

    Light can slow moving atoms when absorption is velocity-selective.

    Why it mattered

    Creates a path to motion control needed for precision quantum experiments.

    Keep in mindThe teams proposed how laser light could slow particles. A trapped-ion cooling experiment followed in 1978.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Laser-cooling proposals target atoms and ions. Independent proposals describe radiation-pressure cooling of neutral atoms and trapped ions.

    How to read this date: 1975 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The teams proposed how laser light could slow particles. A trapped-ion cooling experiment followed in 1978.

  7. 1978Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Trapped ions are cooled using laser radiation

    Slowing trapped ions helps make their behavior easier to control.

    Why it mattered

    Demonstrates a crucial method for later trapped-ion quantum control.

    Keep in mindThis is not yet ground-state cooling or a quantum logic gate.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Trapped ions are cooled using laser radiation. Laser illumination cools trapped magnesium ions below ambient temperature.

    How to read this date: 19 June 1978 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This is not yet ground-state cooling or a quantum logic gate.

  8. 1980Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Benioff gives a quantum-mechanical model of a computer

    A computer can be treated as a physical quantum system.

    Why it mattered

    Shows that computation can be described within quantum mechanics.

    Keep in mindThis is not a demonstration of computational speedup.

    Inside the idea Could a familiar computer obey quantum rules?

    Benioff proposed a Hamiltonian whose evolution represents successive steps of a Turing-machine calculation. The advance was a physical model for performing the computation. It did not depend on building a faster device or finding a new algorithm.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Benioff gives a quantum-mechanical model of a computer. Benioff constructs a microscopic Hamiltonian model representing Turing-machine computation.

    How to read this date: May 1980 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: This is not a demonstration of computational speedup.

  9. 1981Historical context
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    The Physics of Computation conference connects fields

    A quantum device may naturally model another quantum system.

    Why it mattered

    Feynman's simulation argument becomes a major historical anchor.

    Keep in mindThe meeting connected important strands of work; it was not the sole origin of quantum computing.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: The Physics of Computation conference connects fields. The MIT and IBM meeting brings together work on physics and computation.

    How to read this date: 1981 records the historical context date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The meeting connected important strands of work; it was not the sole origin of quantum computing.

  10. 1981Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Zurek analyzes environment-selected measurement records

    Interactions with surroundings favor some durable records over others.

    Why it mattered

    Develops a key part of the decoherence account.

    Keep in mindDecoherence analysis does not by itself settle every interpretation of measurement.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Zurek analyzes environment-selected measurement records. Zurek relates stable pointer states to the apparatus-environment interaction.

    How to read this date: 15 September 1981 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Decoherence analysis does not by itself settle every interpretation of measurement.

  11. 1982Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Dieks independently analyzes the no-cloning limitation

    Quantum correlations cannot be amplified into faster-than-light messages.

    Why it mattered

    Provides an independent no-cloning-era contribution.

    Keep in mindThe argument concerns a device that would copy any unknown quantum state perfectly. Some known sets of states can be copied.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Dieks independently analyzes the no-cloning limitation. Dieks rules out a proposed superluminal communication scheme using quantum linearity.

    How to read this date: 1982 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The argument concerns a device that would copy any unknown quantum state perfectly. Some known sets of states can be copied.

  12. 1982Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Fredkin and Toffoli develop conservative logic

    A logic operation can preserve enough information to run backward.

    Why it mattered

    Connects circuit theory with physical resource limits.

    Keep in mindAn idealized classical model, not an experimentally lossless quantum computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Fredkin and Toffoli develop conservative logic. A computation model combines reversibility with conservation constraints.

    How to read this date: April 1982 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: An idealized classical model, not an experimentally lossless quantum computer.

  13. 1982Publication
    Scientific idea

    Feynman proposes using one quantum system to study another

    Richard Feynman argued that simulating quantum systems can be difficult for ordinary computers, and that controlled quantum systems offer a natural alternative. His influential paper followed a talk given in 1981.

    Why it mattered

    Studying molecules and materials became a major motivation: use a quantum machine to model another system governed by quantum rules.

    Still to solveThis was a proposal about simulation, not proof that a quantum computer would accelerate every kind of calculation.

    In plain EnglishSimulation Using one system or a mathematical model to study how another system behaves.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEUse quantum nature to study nature.
    Use quantum nature to study nature.System to studyControlled systemMolecule or materialQuantum simulatorMeasure to learn a property

    Researchers seek to control one quantum system so it can reveal properties of another, such as a molecule or material.

    A motivation for quantum simulation, not a guaranteed speedup.
    Inside the idea Why use one quantum system to study another?

    A general state of n qubits has 2ⁿ amplitudes. Writing them all down on a conventional computer quickly becomes impractical. A controlled quantum system can instead evolve under chosen interactions, then yield measurements of a target property. Some structured systems still permit efficient classical methods.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Feynman's simulation paper is published. The paper Simulating physics with computers appears in print.

    How to read this date: June 1982 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The talk and publication are separate chronological records.

    The next questionA machine that imitates nature is one possibility. Could a quantum machine also follow different programs?

  14. 1982Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Wootters and Zurek publish a no-cloning result

    An unknown qubit cannot be copied like an ordinary digital file.

    Why it mattered

    Explains a basic constraint on quantum communication and error correction.

    Keep in mindDennis Dieks independently published a related argument in 1982. James Park had explored the limits of copying quantum states in 1970.

    Inside the idea Why can we copy a bit, but not an arbitrary qubit?

    A gate can copy the labels 0 and 1 into a blank target. Applied to their superposition, the same gate generally entangles the two qubits instead of producing independent copies. This follows from linearity: an operation must act consistently on both the components and their sum.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Wootters and Zurek publish a no-cloning result. Quantum linearity forbids a universal machine that perfectly copies arbitrary unknown quantum states.

    How to read this date: 28 October 1982 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Dennis Dieks independently published a related argument in 1982. James Park had explored the limits of copying quantum states in 1970.

  15. 1982Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Aspect's team tests changing measurement settings

    Change the measurement choices while the experiment is running.

    Why it mattered

    Strengthens experimental tests of nonclassical correlations.

    Keep in mindThis influential experiment still had loopholes; it was not a loophole-free Bell test.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Aspect's team tests changing measurement settings. A Bell test with time-varying analyzers reports correlations agreeing with quantum predictions.

    How to read this date: 20 December 1982 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This influential experiment still had loopholes; it was not a loophole-free Bell test.

  16. 1983Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Wiesner's conjugate coding is published

    Measurement can disturb another encoding.

    Why it mattered

    Foundational quantum cryptography.

    Keep in mindWritten circa 1970; published in 1983.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Wiesner's conjugate coding is published. Wiesner's conjugate coding describes quantum money and incompatible encodings.

    How to read this date: 1983 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Written circa 1970; published in 1983.

    • Bibliography of Quantum Cryptography (opens in a new tab)Claude Crepeau / McGill University · institution · A researcher-maintained historical bibliography distinguishes manuscript, protocol and prototype dates. Webpage publication year is not established; historical event dates come from its described records.
  17. 1984Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Berry describes geometric quantum phase

    The path taken through parameters can matter even after returning to the start.

    Why it mattered

    Adds a geometric route to understanding phase and control.

    Keep in mindThe result assumes adiabatic evolution: the parameters change slowly enough for the system to follow the relevant state.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Berry describes geometric quantum phase. Berry derives a phase acquired when quantum parameters trace a slow closed circuit.

    How to read this date: 8 March 1984 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The result assumes adiabatic evolution: the parameters change slowly enough for the system to follow the relevant state.

  18. 1984Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bennett and Brassard present BB84

    Interception can introduce detectable disturbance.

    Why it mattered

    A quantum protocol for distributing secret keys.

    Keep in mind1984 origin, not 2014 republication; authenticated classical communication required.

    Inside the idea How can an intercepted key leave evidence?

    In BB84, states are prepared and measured in two possible bases. The users compare bases over an authenticated classical channel and test a sample of their retained bits. An unexpectedly high error rate can make them discard the key. Security depends on the protocol and the devices.

    Bennett and Brassard’s original protocol ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bennett and Brassard present BB84. Bennett and Brassard present BB84 in Bangalore.

    How to read this date: December 1984 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: 1984 origin, not 2014 republication; authenticated classical communication required.

    • Bibliography of Quantum Cryptography (opens in a new tab)Claude Crepeau / McGill University · institution · A researcher-maintained historical bibliography distinguishes manuscript, protocol and prototype dates. Webpage publication year is not established; historical event dates come from its described records.
  19. 1985Publication
    Scientific idea

    Deutsch describes a programmable quantum computer

    David Deutsch developed a model of a universal quantum computer: a machine that could perform different quantum computations through suitable instructions. The aim expanded from specialized simulations to a general framework for quantum information processing.

    Why it mattered

    Researchers could now design algorithms, or step-by-step methods, for a quantum computer and identify the operations needed to perform them.

    Still to solve“Universal” describes what the model can represent. It does not mean that every problem becomes easy or faster to solve.

    In plain EnglishQubit A quantum unit of information. Reading it in the usual computational basis gives 0 or 1.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLETurn an idea into instructions.
    Turn an idea into instructions.PREPARE → OPERATE → MEASUREq0q1GateChangeInteractRead outEach measurement gives a recorded result

    Prepare qubits, apply controlled operations, then measure. The result is ordinary information that a classical computer can process.

    Conceptual circuit. Gates and outcomes depend on the algorithm.
    Inside the idea What makes a quantum computer programmable?

    A single model can execute different computations when given different instructions. That is what “universal” describes. The time, memory and precision needed still depend on the particular problem. A useful algorithm must therefore do more than show its instructions can be written.

    01 / Circuit desk · worked example

    The same gates. A different order.

    A quantum gate is an instruction that changes a qubit. Like ordinary instructions, the order can change the result. Both examples below start at 0 and are measured only at the end.

    H → Z → H
    The first H combines the two basis states. Z changes their relative sign. The final H recombines them into 1.
    Z → H → H
    Z leaves the starting 0 unchanged. The two H operations undo each other, returning the qubit to 0.

    A circuit specifies the operations and their order. Listing its gates alone does not describe the computation.

    Read the gate notation

    H is a Hadamard gate. In basis order (0, 1), it maps amplitudes (a, b) to ((a+b)/√2, (a−b)/√2). Z maps (a, b) to (a, −b). Applying these rules in the stated order gives the two final states above.

    This is an ideal single-qubit example, not a hardware measurement. IBM Quantum Learning · states and operations.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Deutsch proposes a universal quantum computer. Deutsch formulates a quantum generalization of computing machines and a universal quantum computer.

    How to read this date: 8 July 1985 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Quantum computing does not make noncomputable functions computable.

    The next questionA programmable model gives researchers a place to begin. Next comes the search for a calculation worth building it for.

  20. 1987Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Hong, Ou and Mandel demonstrate two-photon interference

    When two matching photons arrive together at opposite inputs of a balanced beam splitter, they tend to leave through the same output. The two detectors then click together less often.

    Why it mattered

    Supplies a core phenomenon for later photonic quantum experiments.

    Keep in mindIf the photons differ in arrival time or another detectable property, coincidences can reappear.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Hong, Ou and Mandel demonstrate two-photon interference. Two-photon interference enables measurement of very short relative arrival intervals.

    How to read this date: 2 November 1987 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: If the photons differ in arrival time or another detectable property, coincidences can reappear.

  21. 1989Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A quantum-cryptography prototype is reported working

    Sender and receiver exchange key material.

    Why it mattered

    Brings protocol proposals into the laboratory.

    Keep in mind1989 prototype report; fuller journal article in 1992.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A quantum-cryptography prototype is reported working. A report announces a working quantum-cryptography prototype.

    How to read this date: 1989 records the announcement date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: 1989 prototype report; fuller journal article in 1992.

    • Bibliography of Quantum Cryptography (opens in a new tab)Claude Crepeau / McGill University · institution · A researcher-maintained historical bibliography distinguishes manuscript, protocol and prototype dates. Webpage publication year is not established; historical event dates come from its described records.
  22. 1991Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Ekert proposes entanglement-based key distribution

    Shared quantum correlations can support tests for interception.

    Why it mattered

    Offers a distinct quantum-cryptographic approach.

    Keep in mindTheoretical protocol security and deployed-device security are different questions.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Ekert proposes entanglement-based key distribution. Ekert connects key distribution with entangled pairs and a Bell test.

    How to read this date: 5 August 1991 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Theoretical protocol security and deployed-device security are different questions.

  23. 1992Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Deutsch and Jozsa demonstrate an oracle speedup

    A carefully designed question can be answered with fewer oracle calls.

    Why it mattered

    Shows how interference can change query requirements.

    Keep in mindThe comparison is with deterministic classical queries under a promise.

    Inside the idea What makes this an unusual search problem?

    There is a promise about the hidden function: its outputs are either all the same or evenly split. Interference can distinguish those possibilities. Any comparison of query counts must say whether the classical competitor must be exactly right or may occasionally make an error.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Deutsch and Jozsa demonstrate an oracle speedup. Deutsch and Jozsa give a quantum algorithm for a promised oracle problem.

    How to read this date: 1992 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The comparison is with deterministic classical queries under a promise.

  24. 1992Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bennett and Wiesner introduce dense coding

    A shared quantum resource changes what a later transmission can communicate.

    Why it mattered

    Demonstrates an operational use of entanglement.

    Keep in mindThe sender and receiver must first share an entangled pair. The sender then transmits one qubit so the receiver can recover two classical bits.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bennett and Wiesner introduce dense coding. Shared entanglement and transmission of one quantum system enable a two-bit communication protocol.

    How to read this date: 16 November 1992 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The sender and receiver must first share an entangled pair. The sender then transmits one qubit so the receiver can recover two classical bits.

  25. 1993Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Quantum teleportation is proposed

    A receiver reconstructs a state after receiving ordinary measurement information.

    Why it mattered

    Provides a building block for quantum networks.

    Keep in mindTransfers a state, not a person or usable information faster than light.

    Inside the idea Why must a teleported state wait for a message?

    The sender uses a shared entangled pair and a joint measurement. The measurement outcome supplies two ordinary bits telling the receiver which correction to make. Until those bits arrive, the receiver cannot recover the transmitted state. The protocol consumes the shared entanglement.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Quantum teleportation is proposed. A protocol transfers an unknown quantum state using shared entanglement and classical communication.

    How to read this date: 29 March 1993 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Transfers a state, not a person or usable information faster than light.

  26. 1993Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Bernstein and Vazirani advance quantum complexity theory

    Ask which problems quantum rules make more efficient.

    Why it mattered

    Places quantum computation within formal complexity analysis.

    Keep in mindOracle-based separations concern specified access models, not a general claim of practical speedup.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Bernstein and Vazirani advance quantum complexity theory. Bernstein and Vazirani publish a quantum-complexity framework at STOC.

    How to read this date: June 1993 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Oracle-based separations concern specified access models, not a general claim of practical speedup.

PART 03 1994–2005

What could it do, and how could it work?

Algorithms reveal specific reasons to build quantum computers. Error correction offers protection, while experiments begin turning instructions into controllable hardware.

  1. 1994Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Simon gives an exponential oracle separation

    Interference can expose a hidden pattern in function values.

    Why it mattered

    Provides an important stepping stone toward period-finding algorithms.

    Keep in mindThe result concerns an oracle problem and its stated distribution.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Simon gives an exponential oracle separation. Simon presents a quantum approach to finding a hidden period with an exponential oracle advantage.

    How to read this date: 1994 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The result concerns an oracle problem and its stated distribution.

  2. 1994Publication
    Scientific idea

    Shor shows how a quantum computer could factor large numbers

    Multiplying 7 by 11 gives 77. Factoring asks the reverse question. For the huge numbers used by RSA, that reversal is difficult with known classical methods. Peter Shor showed how a quantum computer could factor efficiently and solve a related problem called the discrete logarithm.

    Why it mattered

    RSA relies on the difficulty of recovering the factors of a large public number. Shor’s result gave security researchers a specific reason to design replacements before a machine capable of running the attack exists.

    Still to solveAttacking real cryptographic keys requires a sufficiently large, reliable quantum computer. The algorithm’s discovery did not immediately break deployed encryption.

    In plain EnglishPublic-key cryptography Methods using related public and private keys to protect information or verify signatures.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEA quantum computer is part of the process.
    A quantum computer is part of the process.01PrepareSet up the problem02OperateQuantum operations03MeasureRecord outcomes04InterpretClassical processing

    A useful method connects preparation, quantum operations, measurement and classical interpretation. Measurement does not reveal every possible answer.

    A workflow, not measured performance.
    Inside the idea Where do the factors come from?

    The quantum part finds clues to a repeating pattern in modular arithmetic. A classical calculation uses the period to try to recover factors. This is an efficient algorithm on a sufficiently capable quantum computer. The 1994 paper demonstrated the mathematics, not a machine breaking an encryption key.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Shor publishes factoring and discrete-log algorithms. Shor gives polynomial-time quantum algorithms for factoring and discrete logarithms.

    How to read this date: November 1994 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: November 1994 dates the FOCS proceedings, not the expanded 1995 preprint. No exponential separation from every possible classical factoring algorithm has been proved.

    The next questionA powerful algorithm is only useful if its delicate quantum information survives long enough to run.

  3. 1995Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Schumacher establishes quantum compression

    Quantum signals have information limits governing faithful representation.

    Why it mattered

    Defines a quantitative role for quantum information compression and qubits.

    Keep in mindQuantum source compression is distinct from compressing arbitrary classical files.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Schumacher establishes quantum compression. Schumacher proves a quantum analogue of noiseless information coding.

    How to read this date: 1 April 1995 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Quantum source compression is distinct from compressing arbitrary classical files.

  4. 1995Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Cirac and Zoller propose a trapped-ion computer

    Shared motion can connect the internal states of different ions.

    Why it mattered

    Provides a concrete physical computing scheme.

    Keep in mindThis proposal is separate from later gate demonstrations.

    Inside the idea How could separated ions share an operation?

    In the Cirac–Zoller proposal, internal states carry the qubits, while collective motion can mediate an operation between ions. Lasers couple the internal states to that motion. The proposal set out an architecture whose operations still needed to be demonstrated in the laboratory.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Cirac and Zoller propose a trapped-ion computer. Cold trapped ions and their shared motion form a proposed architecture for quantum logic.

    How to read this date: 15 May 1995 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This proposal is separate from later gate demonstrations.

  5. 1995Experiment
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    JILA produces a dilute-gas Bose-Einstein condensate

    A large population of atoms occupies a shared quantum state.

    Why it mattered

    Enables new study of collective quantum matter.

    Keep in mindThe experiment took place in 1995; the Nobel recognition came in 2001.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: JILA produces a dilute-gas Bose-Einstein condensate. The JILA experiment produces Bose-Einstein condensation in an ultracold rubidium gas.

    How to read this date: 5 June 1995 records the experiment date.

    Scope & limitations: The experiment took place in 1995; the Nobel recognition came in 2001.

  6. 1995Publication
    Scientific idea

    Shor shows how nine qubits can protect one

    Shor’s code spreads the state of one logical qubit across nine physical qubits. If one of the nine suffers an error, checks on the group reveal enough to correct it while keeping the stored quantum information hidden from those checks.

    Why it mattered

    Making nine copies of an unknown qubit is impossible. Encoding it across a group provides something a copy could not: a way to diagnose damage without reading out the answer.

    Still to solveThis was a theoretical code, not a finished reliable computer. Protection needs extra physical resources and sufficiently accurate operations.

    In plain EnglishLogical qubit A unit of quantum information encoded with redundancy so that errors can be detected or corrected.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEProtect information by encoding it.
    Protect information by encoding it.ONE LOGICAL QUBITErrorchecksShared encodingDiagnosticinformationDetect or correct supported errors

    A logical qubit uses a shared encoding across physical resources. Suitable checks reveal information about errors without reading the protected state directly.

    Schematic encoding, not copies of an unknown quantum state.
    Inside the idea How can a check find an error without reading the message?

    Shor’s nine-qubit code stores one logical qubit in relationships among nine physical qubits. Checks designed for the code distinguish patterns of errors without revealing the 0/1 value of the logical qubit. The code can correct an arbitrary error confined to one physical qubit.

    02 / Error desk · classical analogy

    Can you find a flip without reading the message?

    Store one ordinary bit in three places. A check returns 1 when neighboring bits disagree. With at most one flip, two checks locate it.

    A0
    B0
    C0
    Parity checks and decoder action
    A vs BB vs CDecoderOutput
    00No change000

    Both pairs agree. These checks alone cannot distinguish 000 from 111.

    Where the analogy stops

    For example, starting at 000, a flip at B gives 010. Both checks report 1. Flipping B gives 000 again. But flips at A and B give 110, the same check pattern as 001. This decoder cannot distinguish those errors.

    A quantum code stores one logical state across several physical qubits. It cannot make independent copies of an unknown qubit. This classical example omits phase errors and makes no prediction about hardware.

    IBM Quantum Learning · repetition codes

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Shor introduces quantum error correction. Shor proposes protecting quantum-memory information through an error-correcting encoding.

    How to read this date: 1 October 1995 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A theoretical code is not a demonstrated fault-tolerant computer.

    The next questionA protective method is a plan. Carrying it out still requires physical operations that researchers can control.

  7. 1995Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Elementary gate universality is established

    A few kinds of building blocks can express many quantum computations.

    Why it mattered

    Supports circuit construction from a small toolbox.

    Keep in mindUniversality does not mean an arbitrary unitary is efficient to implement.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Elementary gate universality is established. Single-qubit operations with a two-qubit exclusive-OR gate generate arbitrary quantum unitary operations.

    How to read this date: 1 November 1995 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Universality does not mean an arbitrary unitary is efficient to implement.

  8. 1995Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Cavity experiments measure conditional optical phase shifts

    The response to one optical field can depend on another quantum interaction.

    Why it mattered

    Explores a photonic route toward interactions between quantum signals.

    Keep in mindThe paper considers a gate proposal based on measured shifts.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Cavity experiments measure conditional optical phase shifts. A strongly coupled atom-cavity system produces conditional phase shifts relevant to quantum logic.

    How to read this date: 18 December 1995 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The paper considers a gate proposal based on measured shifts.

  9. 1995Publication
    Engineering result

    Two properties of one ion carry out a logic gate

    A NIST team used two properties of a single trapped ion as qubits. One described its vibration and the other an internal state. Laser pulses made a flip of the internal state depend on the vibrational state. The operation is called a controlled-NOT gate.

    Why it mattered

    A theoretical computer needs physical instructions. Demonstrating a conditional operation was a step toward turning quantum algorithms into laboratory experiments.

    Still to solveThe two information carriers were properties of one ion, not two separate ions. One operation does not make a complete computer.

    In plain EnglishQuantum gate An instruction that transforms the state of one or more qubits. Some gates make one qubit’s operation depend on another’s state.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLETurn an idea into instructions.
    Turn an idea into instructions.PREPARE → OPERATE → MEASUREq0q1GateChangeInteractRead outEach measurement gives a recorded result

    Prepare qubits, apply controlled operations, then measure. The result is ordinary information that a classical computer can process.

    Conceptual circuit. Gates and outcomes depend on the algorithm.
    Inside the idea Where were the two qubits in this gate?

    One was encoded in an ion’s internal energy levels, the other in its quantized motion. A controlled operation couples those degrees of freedom so its action depends on the control state. Both were properties of the same trapped ion.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NIST demonstrates controlled quantum logic in one ion. A controlled-NOT operation uses one trapped atom's internal and motional degrees of freedom.

    How to read this date: 18 December 1995 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The two qubits are not two separate trapped ions.

    The next questionWhile experiments tested the building blocks, algorithms continued to reveal different kinds of possible advantage.

  10. 1996Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Entanglement purification is developed

    Trade the quantity of shared pairs for better quality.

    Why it mattered

    Provides a resource-management tool for communication.

    Keep in mindThe protocol applies under specified assumptions; the paper also has a published erratum.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Entanglement purification is developed. Local operations can extract fewer high-quality pairs from suitable noisy shared entanglement.

    How to read this date: 29 January 1996 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The protocol applies under specified assumptions; the paper also has a published erratum.

  11. 1996Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Shor posts fault-tolerant computation construction

    Operations must be designed so error correction itself does not spread failures uncontrollably.

    Why it mattered

    Extends protection from storage to calculation.

    Keep in mindThis date records the preprint; its error bound differs from later constant-threshold results.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Shor posts fault-tolerant computation construction. Shor describes encoded computation that tolerates certain accumulating operational errors.

    How to read this date: 13 May 1996 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: This date records the preprint; its error bound differs from later constant-threshold results.

  12. 1996Preprint submission
    Scientific idea

    Grover shows how to search with fewer checks

    Suppose one item among a million passes a yes-or-no test, and there is no shortcut for finding it. Ordinary search can take hundreds of thousands of checks. In Grover’s ideal quantum algorithm, the number of checks is on the order of a thousand.

    Why it mattered

    Each round changes the amplitudes so the marked item becomes more likely to appear. Increasing the size of the search by a factor of 100 increases the number of quantum checks by roughly a factor of ten.

    Still to solveThe comparison counts calls to a test that can run inside a quantum circuit. Preparing the data, implementing that test and reading the answer all take work.

    In plain EnglishAlgorithm A step-by-step method for solving a specified problem, including how to recognize a useful result.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEHow the number of checks grows.
    How the number of checks grows.Suppose the collection grows100× as many candidatesOrdinary search~100×as many checksGrover search~10×as many checksEach method is compared with its own starting cost.

    With one matching item, making an unstructured search 100 times larger increases ordinary search work about 100-fold. In Grover’s algorithm the number of calls to the test grows about tenfold.

    Scaling for large searches with the same success criterion. This comparison counts test calls and omits setup and hardware time.
    Inside the idea What exactly does the square root count?

    Suppose exactly one of N candidates passes a test. Grover’s algorithm repeatedly changes the marked candidate’s phase and amplifies its amplitude. It needs on the order of √N calls to that test. A real runtime also includes building the test, preparing the state and reading the answer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Grover posts a quantum search algorithm. Grover presents an algorithm using order-square-root-of-N oracle queries for unstructured search.

    How to read this date: 29 May 1996 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: The speedup counts calls to a test for a marked answer. The cost of implementing that test and loading data also matters in an application.

    The next questionAn algorithm describes operations. The hardware question remains: what physical object should carry each qubit?

  13. 1996Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A five-qubit error-correcting code is published

    Five physical qubits can preserve one logical state against a specified class of errors.

    Why it mattered

    Demonstrates compact quantum error protection.

    Keep in mindMinimality refers to this error-correction task, not every protection problem.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A five-qubit error-correcting code is published. A code encodes one qubit into five to correct arbitrary single-qubit errors.

    How to read this date: 1 July 1996 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Minimality refers to this error-correction task, not every protection problem.

  14. 1996Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Steane connects quantum and classical coding

    Classical coding ideas can help protect quantum information when adapted carefully.

    Why it mattered

    Establishes an influential coding approach.

    Keep in mindThis is independent work alongside the Calderbank-Shor construction.

    Inside the idea Why does a majority vote cover only part of the problem?

    A quantum error can change a bit value or a relative phase, and a code needs checks for both. Steane drew on classical codes to protect quantum information against both kinds. Calderbank and Shor independently developed related constructions.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Steane connects quantum and classical coding. Steane develops quantum error correction using relationships with classical linear codes.

    How to read this date: 29 July 1996 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This is independent work alongside the Calderbank-Shor construction.

  15. 1996Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Calderbank and Shor establish families of quantum codes

    Larger code families can protect many logical states.

    Why it mattered

    Shows protection can extend beyond isolated small examples.

    Keep in mindAndrew Steane independently developed the related code construction. The name CSS credits Calderbank, Shor and Steane.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Calderbank and Shor establish families of quantum codes. Calderbank and Shor prove the existence of quantum codes with useful asymptotic rates.

    How to read this date: 1 August 1996 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Andrew Steane independently developed the related code construction. The name CSS credits Calderbank, Shor and Steane.

  16. 1996Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Lloyd establishes universal quantum simulation

    Break complex dynamics into implementable local operations.

    Why it mattered

    Turns a simulation vision into a constructive theoretical result.

    Keep in mindThe simulation cost depends on locality, the requested accuracy and the physical evolution being represented.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Lloyd establishes universal quantum simulation. Lloyd shows how quantum computers can simulate local quantum systems.

    How to read this date: 23 August 1996 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The simulation cost depends on locality, the requested accuracy and the physical evolution being represented.

  17. 1996Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    DiVincenzo and Shor develop fault-tolerant correction networks

    A repair process must remain reliable when its own components can fail.

    Why it mattered

    Addresses a central implementation obstacle.

    Keep in mindThe result is conditional on the modeled errors and circuit construction.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: DiVincenzo and Shor develop fault-tolerant correction networks. They provide procedures that can correct errors even when correction operations themselves are imperfect.

    How to read this date: 7 October 1996 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The result is conditional on the modeled errors and circuit construction.

  18. 1996Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Knill, Laflamme and Zurek post a threshold analysis

    Below appropriate error conditions, additional protection can improve reliability.

    Why it mattered

    Supports the possibility of scalable protected computation.

    Keep in mindNo threshold number is universal across noise models or architectures.

    Inside the idea Is there one error threshold for all machines?

    A threshold result applies to a specified error model and fault-tolerant construction. Below the relevant threshold, extra encoding can improve reliability even when the operations used for correction are imperfect. Another code, noise process or available set of gates can change the threshold.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Knill, Laflamme and Zurek post a threshold analysis. A concatenated fault-tolerance analysis describes reaching desired computational accuracy under suitable gate errors.

    How to read this date: 8 October 1996 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: No threshold number is universal across noise models or architectures.

  19. 1996Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Aharonov and Ben-Or post a constant-threshold result

    Reliable long calculations can be possible if elementary errors are sufficiently controlled.

    Why it mattered

    Strengthens theoretical grounds for scaling quantum computers.

    Keep in mindPreprint date differs from conference and later journal publications.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Aharonov and Ben-Or post a constant-threshold result. Aharonov and Ben-Or describe fault-tolerant computation below a constant error threshold.

    How to read this date: 14 November 1996 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: Preprint date differs from conference and later journal publications.

  20. 1997Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Gottesman organizes quantum codes through stabilizers

    Describe valid encoded states through measurements that leave them unchanged.

    Why it mattered

    Creates a powerful language for organizing error correction.

    Keep in mindStabilizer methods do not make every quantum circuit efficiently classically simulable.

    Inside the idea What does a stabilizer check tell us?

    A stabilizer code defines allowed states through checks that can be measured together. An error may reverse the sign of a check. Several such signs make a syndrome that helps identify a correction while preserving the encoded information.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Gottesman organizes quantum codes through stabilizers. Gottesman's thesis develops the stabilizer framework for quantum codes and fault tolerance.

    How to read this date: 1997 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Stabilizer methods do not make every quantum circuit efficiently classically simulable.

  21. 1997Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Gershenfeld and Chuang propose bulk NMR computation

    Many molecules can perform similar controlled spin operations together.

    Why it mattered

    Uses existing magnetic-resonance techniques for quantum-information experiments.

    Keep in mindAn ensemble demonstration does not establish a scalable pure-state quantum computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Gershenfeld and Chuang propose bulk NMR computation. Bulk spin-resonance methods are described as a route to experimental quantum computation.

    How to read this date: 17 January 1997 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: An ensemble demonstration does not establish a scalable pure-state quantum computer.

  22. 1997Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Knill and Laflamme formalize error-correction conditions

    A code succeeds only when errors can be diagnosed without revealing the protected state.

    Why it mattered

    Provides a general test for whether a code can correct a noise process.

    Keep in mindConditions apply to the defined code space and error set.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Knill and Laflamme formalize error-correction conditions. They derive necessary and sufficient conditions for perfect recovery of encoded states under specified interactions.

    How to read this date: 1 February 1997 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Conditions apply to the defined code space and error set.

  23. 1997Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Cory, Fahmy and Havel publish ensemble NMR computing

    Signals from many similar systems are combined in the readout.

    Why it mattered

    Expands laboratory approaches to early quantum-information processing.

    Keep in mindThe signal was an average over many molecules. An individual run on a single molecule was not read out.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Cory, Fahmy and Havel publish ensemble NMR computing. An ensemble-computing model uses magnetic-resonance control and expectation-value readout.

    How to read this date: 4 March 1997 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The signal was an average over many molecules. An individual run on a single molecule was not read out.

  24. 1997Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Kitaev posts an anyon-based computing proposal

    Information can be represented through the collective properties of excitations and their exchanges.

    Why it mattered

    Establishes a major topological-computing direction.

    Keep in mindA theoretical proposal; the journal publication followed in 2003.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Kitaev posts an anyon-based computing proposal. Kitaev proposes computation through moving and fusing anyonic excitations in two dimensions.

    How to read this date: 9 July 1997 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: A theoretical proposal; the journal publication followed in 2003.

  25. 1997Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Photonic quantum teleportation is demonstrated

    A quantum state can be reconstructed in a different physical carrier.

    Why it mattered

    Moves quantum teleportation from protocol to experiment.

    Keep in mindThe team identified successful transfers from detector coincidences. The output photon carried the input polarization only in the selected trials.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Photonic quantum teleportation is demonstrated. A photon-polarization state is transferred using entanglement and a joint measurement.

    How to read this date: December 1997 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the month; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The team identified successful transfers from detector coincidences. The output photon carried the input polarization only in the selected trials.

  26. 1998Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Loss and DiVincenzo propose spin qubits in quantum dots

    An electron's spin can store information while controlled coupling supplies gates.

    Why it mattered

    Establishes an influential semiconductor architecture.

    Keep in mindThe publication is a proposal, not a built processor.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Loss and DiVincenzo propose spin qubits in quantum dots. Coupled electron spins in quantum dots are proposed for universal quantum gates.

    How to read this date: 1 January 1998 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The publication is a proposal, not a built processor.

  27. 1998Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    An NMR experiment implements four-state quantum search

    Prepare a state, apply the algorithm and measure its answer.

    Why it mattered

    Demonstrates a complete small quantum-algorithm sequence.

    Keep in mindQuery reduction in a toy experiment is not practical computational advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: An NMR experiment implements four-state quantum search. Grover's algorithm is implemented for four states using chloroform NMR.

    How to read this date: 13 April 1998 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Query reduction in a toy experiment is not practical computational advantage.

  28. 1998Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    An NMR experiment runs a quantum oracle algorithm

    The function has two possible inputs. The experiment asks whether they give the same output or different outputs.

    Why it mattered

    Shows experimental control of a full computation sequence.

    Keep in mindAn exact classical answer for this two-input problem needs both function values. The ideal quantum circuit needs one call. This comparison counts calls, rather than laboratory runtime.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: An NMR experiment runs a quantum oracle algorithm. Nuclear spins implement a small algorithm using fewer oracle calls than its classical comparison.

    How to read this date: 14 May 1998 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: An exact classical answer for this two-input problem needs both function values. The ideal quantum circuit needs one call. This comparison counts calls, rather than laboratory runtime.

  29. 1998Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Kane proposes donor nuclear-spin qubits in silicon

    Atoms placed inside silicon can supply quantum information registers.

    Why it mattered

    Connects quantum-information hardware with semiconductor engineering.

    Keep in mindThe architecture depends on fabrication and control advances beyond the proposal.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Kane proposes donor nuclear-spin qubits in silicon. A silicon architecture encodes information in donor nuclear spins with electrically controlled operations.

    How to read this date: 14 May 1998 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The architecture depends on fabrication and control advances beyond the proposal.

  30. 1998Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Jones, Mosca and Hansen demonstrate NMR quantum search

    Different laboratories can independently turn an abstract circuit into a controlled experiment.

    Why it mattered

    Provides another early experimental algorithm demonstration.

    Keep in mindChuang, Gershenfeld and Kubinec reported another four-state NMR search experiment the previous month.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Jones, Mosca and Hansen demonstrate NMR quantum search. An NMR quantum computer implements a version of Grover's search algorithm.

    How to read this date: 28 May 1998 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Chuang, Gershenfeld and Kubinec reported another four-state NMR search experiment the previous month.

  31. 1998Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Continuous-variable teleportation is demonstrated

    Quantum information can reside in continuous optical variables as well as two-level states.

    Why it mattered

    Demonstrates a distinct continuous-variable networking approach.

    Keep in mindUnconditional describes the protocol operation, not perfect fidelity.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Continuous-variable teleportation is demonstrated. Optical coherent states are teleported using squeezed-state entanglement.

    How to read this date: 23 October 1998 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Unconditional describes the protocol operation, not perfect fidelity.

  32. 1998Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Briegel and colleagues propose quantum repeaters

    Build a longer reliable link from shorter entangled segments.

    Why it mattered

    Provides a strategy beyond direct transmission over a lossy channel.

    Keep in mindThis is a protocol proposal, not a deployed long-distance network.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Briegel and colleagues propose quantum repeaters. A nested entanglement-purification scheme addresses long-distance quantum communication with imperfect operations.

    How to read this date: 28 December 1998 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This is a protocol proposal, not a deployed long-distance network.

  33. 1999Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Molmer and Sorensen propose robust ion entanglement

    Internal ion states can become entangled while motion acts as an intermediary.

    Why it mattered

    Introduces an influential trapped-ion interaction scheme.

    Keep in mindHot is relative to specified motional assumptions, not ordinary room-temperature operation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Molmer and Sorensen propose robust ion entanglement. A proposed entangling method uses collective motion without requiring complete motional ground-state control.

    How to read this date: 1 March 1999 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Hot is relative to specified motional assumptions, not ordinary room-temperature operation.

  34. 1999Publication
    Engineering result

    Researchers control a qubit on a tiny electrical circuit

    Yasunobu Nakamura, Yuri Pashkin and Jaw-Shen Tsai used short voltage pulses to control quantum behavior in a tiny superconducting circuit. Its two charge states formed a qubit: an engineered object whose quantum state could be deliberately changed.

    Why it mattered

    Qubits could be built from manufactured circuits as well as natural systems such as atoms, opening another route to quantum hardware.

    Still to solveThis controlled one qubit. It did not yet demonstrate a large processor, reliable computation or a practical speed advantage.

    In plain EnglishSuperconducting qubit A quantum bit made from an electrical circuit operated at very low temperature.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEA qubit needs a whole support system.
    A qubit needs a whole support system.Classical control signalsReadout → ordinary data

    Control signals prepare and manipulate physical qubits. Readout turns measurements into ordinary data. Accuracy matters alongside the number of qubits.

    Conceptual hardware. Real platforms use different physical designs.
    Inside the idea What was being controlled inside the circuit?

    Two charge states of a tiny superconducting island differed by one Cooper pair. After a voltage pulse, the measured charge signal oscillated with pulse duration. These oscillations provided evidence for coherent control of the circuit’s quantum states.

    The authors’ open manuscript ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Nakamura, Pashkin and Tsai control a superconducting qubit. Voltage pulses control coherent oscillations between charge states of a Cooper-pair box.

    How to read this date: 29 April 1999 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A single controlled qubit is not a scalable error-corrected computer.

    The next questionBuilding a controllable qubit is a start. Keeping unwanted disturbances from spoiling it becomes the next engineering problem.

  35. 1999Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A persistent-current superconducting qubit is designed

    Two circulating-current configurations can define quantum states of a circuit.

    Why it mattered

    Develops a superconducting flux-qubit architecture.

    Keep in mindThis was a design proposal. Later demonstrations of coherent control are separate milestones.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A persistent-current superconducting qubit is designed. A Josephson-junction loop is designed with opposite persistent-current states for a qubit.

    How to read this date: 13 August 1999 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This was a design proposal. Later demonstrations of coherent control are separate milestones.

  36. 2000Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Adiabatic computation is proposed

    Change the problem landscape slowly enough that the quantum state can follow it.

    Why it mattered

    It established another way to organize quantum computation.

    Keep in mindThe proposal did not establish efficient solutions for every satisfiability problem.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Adiabatic computation is proposed. Farhi and collaborators posted an algorithm based on slowly changing a quantum Hamiltonian.

    How to read this date: 28 January 2000 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: The proposal did not establish efficient solutions for every satisfiability problem.

  37. 2000Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Geometric quantum gates demonstrated with NMR

    A carefully traced path can determine the effect of a quantum operation.

    Why it mattered

    Control can use geometric properties of an evolution, expanding the gate-design toolbox.

    Keep in mindA small NMR experiment does not establish a scalable computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Geometric quantum gates demonstrated with NMR. Jones and collaborators reported geometric quantum computation using nuclear magnetic resonance.

    How to read this date: 24 February 2000 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A small NMR experiment does not establish a scalable computer.

  38. 2000Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    DiVincenzo organizes the hardware requirements

    A quantum computer needs preparation, control, memory and readout to work together.

    Why it mattered

    The criteria provide a common vocabulary for comparing proposed platforms.

    Keep in mindThese are engineering requirements, not a certification that a platform has met them.

    Inside the idea What does good hardware have to do together?

    DiVincenzo’s computation criteria ask for scalable qubits, a known starting state, coherence long enough to apply gates, a universal set of gates and qubit-specific measurement. Additional criteria address moving quantum information between locations. Meeting one criterion alone cannot qualify an entire architecture.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: DiVincenzo organizes the hardware requirements. DiVincenzo described five requirements for quantum computation and two additional requirements for quantum communication.

    How to read this date: 25 February 2000 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: These are engineering requirements, not a certification that a platform has met them.

  39. 2000Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Microtrap arrays offer a scalable ion architecture

    Many small traps can become coordinated parts of one machine.

    Why it mattered

    The design addressed organization of a larger trapped-ion computer.

    Keep in mindAn architecture proposal is distinct from a fabricated processor.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Microtrap arrays offer a scalable ion architecture. Cirac and Zoller proposed quantum computing with ions arranged in an array of microtraps.

    How to read this date: 6 April 2000 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: An architecture proposal is distinct from a fabricated processor.

  40. 2000Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Amplitude amplification and estimation are generalized

    The algorithm increases useful outcomes and estimates how often they occur.

    Why it mattered

    The work extends quantum search into reusable algorithmic procedures.

    Keep in mindSpeedups depend on oracle access and state-preparation costs.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Amplitude amplification and estimation are generalized. Brassard and collaborators presented amplitude amplification and amplitude estimation.

    How to read this date: 15 May 2000 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: Speedups depend on oracle access and state-preparation costs.

  41. 2000Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Exchange interactions alone can implement universal computation

    A simpler type of physical interaction can do more when information is encoded differently.

    Why it mattered

    Encoding can trade additional qubits for simpler physical controls.

    Keep in mindThe construction has overhead and was a theoretical scheme.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Exchange interactions alone can implement universal computation. DiVincenzo and collaborators showed how encoded qubits can support universal computation using exchange interactions alone.

    How to read this date: 16 November 2000 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The construction has overhead and was a theoretical scheme.

  42. 2001Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Linear optics gains a route to scalable quantum logic

    Light can process quantum information when interference and measurement are combined carefully.

    Why it mattered

    The KLM proposal made photonic quantum computation a concrete architecture.

    Keep in mindLinear optical components alone without the required resources do not provide deterministic universal logic.

    Inside the idea How could photons take part in a logic gate?

    The KLM scheme combines linear optical elements with prepared photons, measurements and choices conditioned on those measurements. Detection can herald a successful operation. The proposal relies on this combination of resources; passive optical components by themselves are only part of the design.

    Knill, Laflamme and Milburn’s manuscript ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Linear optics gains a route to scalable quantum logic. Knill, Laflamme and Milburn proposed efficient quantum computation using linear optics, measurements and additional resources.

    How to read this date: 4 January 2001 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Linear optical components alone without the required resources do not provide deterministic universal logic.

  43. 2001Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Measurement becomes a model of computation

    Prepare a connected quantum state, then calculate by measuring selected parts.

    Why it mattered

    The work introduced the one-way measurement-based model.

    Keep in mindA cluster state must first be prepared; measurements alone do not create the computational resource.

    Inside the idea How can measuring qubits carry out a program?

    Start with a prepared entangled state called a cluster state. The chosen measurement bases determine the computation, and earlier results can affect later measurement choices. The resource is consumed as the computation proceeds. Independent measurements on unconnected qubits would lack that resource.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Measurement becomes a model of computation. Raussendorf and Briegel described computation by single-qubit measurements on entangled cluster states.

    How to read this date: 28 May 2001 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A cluster state must first be prepared; measurements alone do not create the computational resource.

  44. 2001Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Atomic ensembles and light support a repeater proposal

    Intermediate quantum memories can help distribute links over longer distances.

    Why it mattered

    The DLCZ scheme connected memories, photons and heralding in a repeater design.

    Keep in mindThis was a communication architecture proposal, not a completed global network.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Atomic ensembles and light support a repeater proposal. Duan, Lukin, Cirac and Zoller proposed long-distance quantum communication using atomic ensembles and linear optics.

    How to read this date: 22 November 2001 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This was a communication architecture proposal, not a completed global network.

  45. 2001Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    NMR demonstrates a small instance of Shor factoring

    A famous algorithm moved from a mathematical proposal to a small physical experiment.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment brought a landmark quantum algorithm into a laboratory demonstration.

    Keep in mindA compiled small-number example does not demonstrate scalable factoring or cryptographic code-breaking.

    Inside the idea What did factoring 15 demonstrate?

    In this nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, seven nuclear spins carried the qubits for a small instance of Shor’s algorithm. The circuit was tailored to that instance. It demonstrated control of a sequence of operations; larger inputs require resources and error control that this experiment did not establish.

    The authors’ experimental account ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NMR demonstrates a small instance of Shor factoring. Vandersypen and collaborators reported an NMR realization of Shor's factoring algorithm.

    How to read this date: 20 December 2001 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A compiled small-number example does not demonstrate scalable factoring or cryptographic code-breaking.

  46. 2002Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Josephson arrays are proposed for protected qubits

    Some designs try to make information harder for local disturbances to damage.

    Why it mattered

    The work explored hardware structures that could protect quantum information.

    Keep in mindProtection was proposed theoretically; this was not a demonstrated topological computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Josephson arrays are proposed for protected qubits. Ioffe and collaborators proposed topologically protected quantum bits using Josephson-junction arrays.

    How to read this date: 31 January 2002 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Protection was proposed theoretically; this was not a demonstrated topological computer.

  47. 2002Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Quantronium improves control of an electrical-circuit qubit

    An electrical circuit can behave like a controllable two-level quantum system.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment strengthened the case for artificial atoms built from circuits.

    Keep in mindOne controlled circuit is distinct from a complete scalable processor.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Quantronium improves control of an electrical-circuit qubit. Vion and collaborators demonstrated programmable state manipulation and readout in a superconducting circuit called quantronium.

    How to read this date: 3 May 2002 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: One controlled circuit is distinct from a complete scalable processor.

  48. 2002Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Surface-code quantum memory receives a detailed analysis

    Many local checks can protect a quantum state spread across a surface.

    Why it mattered

    The work connected local error checks with scalable protection in two dimensions.

    Keep in mindThe threshold depends on the noise and decoding assumptions.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Surface-code quantum memory receives a detailed analysis. Dennis, Kitaev, Landahl and Preskill analyzed surface-code memory and recovery thresholds.

    How to read this date: 1 September 2002 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The threshold depends on the noise and decoding assumptions.

  49. 2002Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A quantum-dot source produces indistinguishable photons

    Photons must match closely enough to interfere in the required quantum way.

    Why it mattered

    Indistinguishability supports interference needed by many photonic information protocols.

    Keep in mindA source component alone is not a quantum processor.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A quantum-dot source produces indistinguishable photons. Santori and collaborators reported indistinguishable photons from a single-photon device.

    How to read this date: 10 October 2002 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A source component alone is not a quantum processor.

  50. 2003Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Two superconducting charge qubits exhibit coupled oscillations

    Two circuit-based quantum bits were made to interact coherently.

    Why it mattered

    Interacting circuit qubits were an essential step beyond isolated-device control.

    Keep in mindCoupling and oscillations alone do not establish universal computation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Two superconducting charge qubits exhibit coupled oscillations. Pashkin and collaborators reported quantum oscillations in two coupled charge qubits.

    How to read this date: 20 February 2003 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Coupling and oscillations alone do not establish universal computation.

  51. 2003Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A Cirac-Zoller ion gate is realized

    Shared ion motion can help one quantum bit control another.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment realized a gate in a foundational ion-computing proposal.

    Keep in mindA two-qubit gate is a component milestone, not a large computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A Cirac-Zoller ion gate is realized. Schmidt-Kaler and collaborators demonstrated the Cirac-Zoller controlled-NOT gate with trapped ions.

    How to read this date: 27 March 2003 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A two-qubit gate is a component milestone, not a large computer.

  52. 2003Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Conditional logic is demonstrated in charge qubits

    The state of one circuit qubit can influence an operation on another.

    Why it mattered

    Circuit technology progressed from coherent qubits toward conditional logic.

    Keep in mindThe team demonstrated the expected changes in state amplitudes. How the phases evolved during the operation remained open.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Conditional logic is demonstrated in charge qubits. Yamamoto and collaborators demonstrated a conditional gate operation with superconducting charge qubits.

    How to read this date: 30 October 2003 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The team demonstrated the expected changes in state amplitudes. How the phases evolved during the operation remained open.

  53. 2004Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Atomic states are teleported deterministically

    A state is reconstructed elsewhere using entanglement, measurement and a classical message.

    Why it mattered

    Teleportation became an experimentally controlled operation between matter qubits.

    Keep in mindQuantum teleportation transfers a state and requires classical communication; it does not transport matter instantly.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Atomic states are teleported deterministically. Riebe and collaborators reported deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms.

    How to read this date: 17 June 2004 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Quantum teleportation transfers a state and requires classical communication; it does not transport matter instantly.

  54. 2004Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics reaches strong coupling

    A microwave resonator can exchange quantum information with a circuit qubit.

    Why it mattered

    The work established an important control and readout architecture for circuit qubits.

    Keep in mindStrong coupling is a building block, not evidence of quantum computational advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Circuit quantum electrodynamics reaches strong coupling. Wallraff and collaborators coupled a superconducting qubit strongly to a single microwave photon.

    How to read this date: 9 September 2004 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Strong coupling is a building block, not evidence of quantum computational advantage.

  55. 2005Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Fault tolerance is studied for realistically noisy devices

    Protective coding can make noisy components more useful when the full design is considered.

    Why it mattered

    The paper explored how error-correcting constructions could tolerate substantial component noise.

    Keep in mindNumerical thresholds are conditional on the stated model and overhead.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Fault tolerance is studied for realistically noisy devices. Knill presented an approach to quantum computation with realistically noisy devices.

    How to read this date: 3 March 2005 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Numerical thresholds are conditional on the stated model and overhead.

  56. 2005Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Photonic cluster states demonstrate one-way computing

    Measuring a prepared web of entangled photons can implement quantum operations.

    Why it mattered

    A new computational model gained a laboratory proof of principle.

    Keep in mindThe experiment was small and did not establish scalable photonic advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Photonic cluster states demonstrate one-way computing. Walther and collaborators experimentally demonstrated one-way quantum computation using a photonic cluster state.

    How to read this date: 10 March 2005 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The experiment was small and did not establish scalable photonic advantage.

  57. 2005Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Coupled electron spins are coherently controlled

    Tiny semiconductor structures can hold and control interacting electron spins.

    Why it mattered

    Electrical control of coupled spins strengthened a route to semiconductor quantum information processing.

    Keep in mindThe September 1 date is online publication; the journal issue is September 30.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Coupled electron spins are coherently controlled. Petta and collaborators controlled two-electron spin states in semiconductor quantum dots.

    How to read this date: 1 September 2005 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The September 1 date is online publication; the journal issue is September 30.

  58. 2005Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Quantum chemistry algorithms estimate molecular energies

    Quantum algorithms were tested on models of molecules before suitable hardware existed.

    Why it mattered

    The work helped make chemistry a concrete target for quantum computation.

    Keep in mindThe reported calculations used a quantum-computer simulator, not a large quantum device.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Quantum chemistry algorithms estimate molecular energies. Aspuru-Guzik and collaborators simulated quantum algorithms for molecular ground-state energies.

    How to read this date: 9 September 2005 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The reported calculations used a quantum-computer simulator, not a large quantum device.

  59. 2005Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Entanglement scales to larger trapped-ion registers

    More ions were controlled as one connected quantum state.

    Why it mattered

    Larger entangled registers tested control beyond two-particle examples.

    Keep in mindEntanglement size alone does not quantify computational usefulness.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Entanglement scales to larger trapped-ion registers. Haffner and collaborators reported scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions.

    How to read this date: 1 December 2005 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Entanglement size alone does not quantify computational usefulness.

PART 04 2006–2018

How does a research idea become an industry?

Better component designs, remote hardware access and coordinated public programs widen participation. An industry needs people and institutions as well as processors.

  1. 2006Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Topological protection is integrated with one-way computation

    A structured entangled resource can support both computation and protection from errors.

    Why it mattered

    Theoretical links between cluster states and surface codes joined computation and error protection.

    Keep in mindThreshold values depend on the stated error model and are not measured hardware records.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Topological protection is integrated with one-way computation. Raussendorf, Harrington and Goyal described fault-tolerant one-way computing using three-dimensional cluster states.

    How to read this date: 2006 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Threshold values depend on the stated error model and are not measured hardware records.

  2. 2006Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A single electron spin is coherently driven in a quantum dot

    An oscillating control field rotated one trapped electron's quantum spin state.

    Why it mattered

    The result advanced single-qubit control in semiconductor-spin architectures.

    Keep in mindSingle-spin control and a scalable multiqubit processor remain different achievements.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A single electron spin is coherently driven in a quantum dot. Koppens and collaborators demonstrated driven coherent rotations of a single electron spin in a quantum dot.

    How to read this date: 17 August 2006 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Single-spin control and a scalable multiqubit processor remain different achievements.

  3. 2007Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A resonator transfers states between superconducting qubits

    A resonator acts as a temporary quantum-information link between qubits.

    Why it mattered

    A quantum bus could connect separated circuit qubits.

    Keep in mindState storage and transfer are not, by themselves, fault-tolerant computation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A resonator transfers states between superconducting qubits. Sillanpaa, Park and Simmonds demonstrated storage and transfer of quantum states through a resonant cavity.

    How to read this date: 27 September 2007 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: State storage and transfer are not, by themselves, fault-tolerant computation.

  4. 2007Publication
    Scientific idea

    The transmon design makes charge fluctuations less disruptive

    Jens Koch and collaborators proposed the transmon, a redesigned superconducting qubit. Their analysis showed how changing the circuit could sharply reduce its sensitivity to fluctuating electric charge while retaining the ability to control its quantum states.

    Why it mattered

    Progress could come from making each component less vulnerable to disturbance, rather than only increasing the number of components.

    Still to solveThis paper proposed and analyzed a design. Reducing sensitivity to charge noise does not remove every source of error.

    In plain EnglishNoise Unwanted disturbances that change a quantum system or interfere with its control and measurement.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEA qubit needs a whole support system.
    A qubit needs a whole support system.Classical control signalsReadout → ordinary data

    Control signals prepare and manipulate physical qubits. Readout turns measurements into ordinary data. Accuracy matters alongside the number of qubits.

    Conceptual hardware. Real platforms use different physical designs.
    Inside the idea Which trade-off makes a transmon work?

    Increasing the ratio of Josephson energy to charging energy makes a qubit’s transition frequency much less sensitive to small charge fluctuations. It also makes adjacent transition frequencies more alike. The design keeps enough separation to target the qubit transition with a control pulse.

    Koch and colleagues on transmon design ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: The transmon design reduces sensitivity to charge noise. Koch and collaborators introduced the transmon, a superconducting qubit design with reduced charge sensitivity.

    How to read this date: 12 October 2007 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Reduced charge noise does not eliminate all error sources.

    The next questionImproved components are one part of the story. Wider access would let more people learn to program real hardware.

  5. 2008Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Quantum random-access memory is proposed

    A memory request can itself be in a quantum superposition.

    Why it mattered

    Quantum algorithms need careful accounts of how information is loaded and queried.

    Keep in mindA qRAM architecture is not freely available memory or a demonstrated large device.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Quantum random-access memory is proposed. Giovannetti, Lloyd and Maccone proposed an architecture for coherent quantum memory addressing.

    How to read this date: 21 April 2008 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A qRAM architecture is not freely available memory or a demonstrated large device.

  6. 2008Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Trapped ions simulate a quantum magnet

    One quantum device can imitate the behavior of a different quantum system.

    Why it mattered

    A controlled quantum system was used to study another quantum system.

    Keep in mindThe demonstrated model was small and classically tractable.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Trapped ions simulate a quantum magnet. Friedenauer and collaborators simulated a two-spin quantum magnetic transition using trapped ions.

    How to read this date: 27 July 2008 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The demonstrated model was small and classically tractable.

  7. 2009Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A superconducting processor runs two-qubit algorithms

    A circuit-based machine executed complete small quantum programs.

    Why it mattered

    Integrated circuit hardware combined preparation, gates and readout in algorithm demonstrations.

    Keep in mindTiny algorithm examples are demonstrations of control, not useful computational speedups.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A superconducting processor runs two-qubit algorithms. DiCarlo and collaborators demonstrated Grover and Deutsch-Jozsa algorithms on a two-qubit superconducting processor.

    How to read this date: 2009 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Tiny algorithm examples are demonstrations of control, not useful computational speedups.

  8. 2009Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Quantum information is teleported between distant matter qubits

    Light can help transfer a state between separated stationary quantum memories.

    Why it mattered

    Photon-mediated connections linked matter qubits at separate locations.

    Keep in mindThe protocol required heralded entanglement and classical communication.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Quantum information is teleported between distant matter qubits. Olmschenk and collaborators teleported an atomic quantum state between trapped-ion memories separated by about one meter.

    How to read this date: 23 January 2009 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The protocol required heralded entanglement and classical communication.

  9. 2009Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    HHL connects quantum algorithms to linear systems

    The algorithm extracts certain information about a solution without listing the entire vector.

    Why it mattered

    The work opened a route to quantum linear-algebra subroutines.

    Keep in mindInput access, conditioning and quantum-state output constrain the speedup; it does not print every solution entry efficiently.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: HHL connects quantum algorithms to linear systems. Harrow, Hassidim and Lloyd introduced a quantum algorithm for selected properties of linear-system solutions.

    How to read this date: 7 October 2009 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Input access, conditioning and quantum-state output constrain the speedup; it does not print every solution entry efficiently.

  10. 2010Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A neutral-atom controlled-NOT gate uses Rydberg blockade

    Exciting one atom can prevent a neighboring atom from being excited.

    Why it mattered

    Strong Rydberg interactions enabled conditional logic in neutral-atom traps.

    Keep in mindGate truth-table fidelity and postselected entanglement are different quantities.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A neutral-atom controlled-NOT gate uses Rydberg blockade. Isenhower and collaborators demonstrated a controlled-NOT gate between individually addressed neutral atoms using Rydberg blockade.

    How to read this date: 8 January 2010 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Gate truth-table fidelity and postselected entanglement are different quantities.

  11. 2010Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Photonic experiments explore quantum chemistry

    A laboratory quantum processor was used to explore a simple chemistry calculation.

    Why it mattered

    Molecular-energy algorithms were connected with controlled photonic hardware.

    Keep in mindSmall demonstrations do not establish a chemistry advantage over classical computation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Photonic experiments explore quantum chemistry. The Towards quantum chemistry on a quantum computer study reported an experimental quantum-chemistry demonstration.

    How to read this date: 10 January 2010 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Small demonstrations do not establish a chemistry advantage over classical computation.

  12. 2011Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Boson sampling receives a complexity-theory foundation

    Even a specialized photon experiment may produce distributions that are difficult to imitate classically.

    Why it mattered

    The proposal motivated restricted quantum devices as benchmark experiments.

    Keep in mindHardness arguments depend on complexity assumptions; boson sampling is not universal quantum computation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Boson sampling receives a complexity-theory foundation. Aaronson and Arkhipov studied the classical difficulty of sampling outputs from linear-optical networks.

    How to read this date: 2011 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Hardness arguments depend on complexity assumptions; boson sampling is not universal quantum computation.

  13. 2011Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Programmable superconducting spins demonstrate quantum annealing

    A network of controllable spins searches for low-energy configurations.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment tested quantum annealing in manufactured hardware.

    Keep in mindAn annealing demonstration does not establish a speedup or a universal gate-based computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Programmable superconducting spins demonstrate quantum annealing. Johnson and collaborators reported quantum annealing in an eight-spin programmable superconducting network.

    How to read this date: 11 May 2011 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: An annealing demonstration does not establish a speedup or a universal gate-based computer.

  14. 2011Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Error-correction cycles repeat on trapped ions

    The device checked and repaired a chosen kind of error more than once.

    Why it mattered

    Repeated cycles are necessary for protecting information over time.

    Keep in mindProtection of one error type is narrower than arbitrary fault-tolerant computation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Error-correction cycles repeat on trapped ions. Schindler and collaborators implemented repeated correction of phase-flip errors on encoded trapped-ion qubits.

    How to read this date: 27 May 2011 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Protection of one error type is narrower than arbitrary fault-tolerant computation.

  15. 2012Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A single phosphorus atom forms a transistor

    Engineers placed a single useful atom inside a working silicon device.

    Why it mattered

    Atomic precision advanced a manufacturing route relevant to donor-based qubits.

    Keep in mindA transistor is not itself a universal quantum computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A single phosphorus atom forms a transistor. Fuechsle and collaborators fabricated a transistor with an individually positioned phosphorus atom in silicon.

    How to read this date: 19 February 2012 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A transistor is not itself a universal quantum computer.

  16. 2012Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Surface-code architectures are mapped in detail

    The blueprint explains how a large grid could protect and process logical qubits.

    Why it mattered

    The paper connected logical operations, layout and resource estimates.

    Keep in mindResource estimates depend on error rates and architectural assumptions.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Surface-code architectures are mapped in detail. Fowler and collaborators analyzed a surface-code route to large-scale quantum computation.

    How to read this date: 18 September 2012 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Resource estimates depend on error rates and architectural assumptions.

  17. 2012Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A donor electron becomes a controllable silicon qubit

    A single donor-bound electron can store a controllable quantum bit.

    Why it mattered

    Readout and coherent control advanced the silicon-donor approach.

    Keep in mindThe paper demonstrated control and readout of one electron spin. A processor also needs operations linking different qubits.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: A donor electron becomes a controllable silicon qubit. Pla and collaborators demonstrated an electron-spin qubit bound to a single phosphorus donor in silicon.

    How to read this date: 19 September 2012 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The paper demonstrated control and readout of one electron spin. A processor also needs operations linking different qubits.

  18. 2012Recognition
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Nobel Prize recognizes control of individual quantum systems

    Researchers learned to observe and control fragile quantum systems individually.

    Why it mattered

    The award recognized experimental foundations of quantum information technology.

    Keep in mindThis is the award announcement date, not the date their experiments began.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Nobel Prize recognizes control of individual quantum systems. The Physics Nobel Prize was awarded to Serge Haroche and David Wineland for methods of measuring and manipulating individual quantum systems.

    How to read this date: 9 October 2012 records the recognition date.

    Scope & limitations: This is the award announcement date, not the date their experiments began.

  19. 2012Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A photonic chip performs small boson-sampling experiments

    A photonic chip produced the output patterns of interfering photons.

    Why it mattered

    The benchmark model gained a chip-based proof of principle.

    Keep in mindThe small experiment did not establish computational advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A photonic chip performs small boson-sampling experiments. Spring and collaborators demonstrated boson sampling in an integrated photonic circuit.

    How to read this date: 20 December 2012 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The small experiment did not establish computational advantage.

  20. 2013Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    UK announces a national quantum-technology investment

    Public investment helped organize a national quantum-technology effort.

    Why it mattered

    A coordinated national program supported research and translation beyond isolated projects.

    Keep in mindFunding announcements describe commitments, not completed quantum hardware.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: UK announces a national quantum-technology investment. The United Kingdom announced a 270-million-pound quantum-technologies investment in its 2013 Autumn Statement.

    How to read this date: 2013 records the announcement date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: Funding announcements describe commitments, not completed quantum hardware.

  21. 2013Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A superconducting circuit teleports states with feedforward

    A circuit used a measured result to decide how to reconstruct another qubit's state.

    Why it mattered

    Integrated measurement and control made teleportation a reusable circuit operation.

    Keep in mindThe millimeter-scale chip experiment is not long-distance teleportation or faster-than-light signaling.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A superconducting circuit teleports states with feedforward. Steffen and collaborators demonstrated deterministic quantum teleportation with real-time feedforward in a superconducting circuit.

    How to read this date: 14 August 2013 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The millimeter-scale chip experiment is not long-distance teleportation or faster-than-light signaling.

  22. 2014Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Superconducting gate fidelities approach surface-code requirements

    Better individual operations reduced one barrier to error correction.

    Why it mattered

    Gate quality approached requirements relevant to surface-code error correction.

    Keep in mindA gate-fidelity threshold result is not a working fault-tolerant processor.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Superconducting gate fidelities approach surface-code requirements. Barends and collaborators reported high-fidelity one- and two-qubit gates on a five-qubit superconducting processor.

    How to read this date: 23 April 2014 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A gate-fidelity threshold result is not a working fault-tolerant processor.

  23. 2014Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    VQE couples a quantum processor with classical optimization

    A classical computer adjusts a quantum experiment to improve an energy estimate.

    Why it mattered

    Hybrid optimization became a major approach for near-term algorithms.

    Keep in mindThe demonstration does not guarantee speedup or easy optimization for large problems.

    Inside the idea Which part of a variational calculation is quantum?

    The quantum processor prepares a trial state and measures terms needed to estimate its energy. A classical optimizer adjusts the preparation and asks for another estimate. Total cost depends on the family of trial states, how many measurements are needed and how the optimization behaves.

    The original variational solver demonstration ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: VQE couples a quantum processor with classical optimization. Peruzzo and collaborators demonstrated a variational eigenvalue solver using a photonic processor and a classical computer.

    How to read this date: 23 July 2014 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The demonstration does not guarantee speedup or easy optimization for large problems.

  24. 2014Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    QAOA introduces alternating layers for optimization

    Alternate two kinds of quantum operations and tune them to improve candidate answers.

    Why it mattered

    The proposal gave hybrid optimization a structured circuit family.

    Keep in mindIncreasing depth and proving useful advantage are separate challenges.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: QAOA introduces alternating layers for optimization. Farhi, Goldstone and Gutmann proposed the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.

    How to read this date: 14 November 2014 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Increasing depth and proving useful advantage are separate challenges.

  25. 2015Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Repeated error detection protects classical states in a qubit array

    Additional checks helped preserve selected information despite repeated disturbances.

    Why it mattered

    Repeated parity checks demonstrated useful error suppression with more qubits.

    Keep in mindA repetition code protecting one error type is not a complete surface-code logical qubit.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Repeated error detection protects classical states in a qubit array. Kelly and collaborators suppressed environmental bit-flip errors by scaling a superconducting repetition-code experiment.

    How to read this date: 4 March 2015 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A repetition code protecting one error type is not a complete surface-code logical qubit.

  26. 2015Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Two-qubit logic is realized in silicon

    Two silicon spin qubits performed a conditional operation together.

    Why it mattered

    The result joined controlled interactions with a semiconductor platform.

    Keep in mindTwo-qubit logic alone does not establish scalable manufacturing or fault tolerance.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Two-qubit logic is realized in silicon. Veldhorst and collaborators demonstrated a two-qubit gate using electron spins in enriched silicon.

    How to read this date: 5 October 2015 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Two-qubit logic alone does not establish scalable manufacturing or fault tolerance.

  27. 2015Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A Bell experiment closes major loopholes

    Distant measurement results violated the limit allowed by the tested local-realist models.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment strengthened empirical tests underlying quantum-information protocols.

    Keep in mindIt does not enable faster-than-light communication or settle every philosophical interpretation.

    Inside the idea What makes a Bell-test loophole important?

    If many outcomes go undetected, the observed subset could misrepresent the full set. If settings or outcomes can reach the other detector in time, local communication could explain a correlation. Hensen and colleagues addressed these two issues together. Their finite data still required a statistical test.

    Hensen and colleagues describe their test ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A Bell experiment closes major loopholes. Hensen and collaborators reported a loophole-free Bell test with electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometers.

    How to read this date: 21 October 2015 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: It does not enable faster-than-light communication or settle every philosophical interpretation.

  28. 2016Launch
    Industry & access

    IBM opens a five-qubit processor to the public

    IBM made a five-qubit quantum processor accessible through the internet. People outside the laboratory could submit quantum circuits, run experiments on real hardware and inspect the results through a cloud service.

    Why it mattered

    Hands-on learning and experimentation reached a much wider audience, helping researchers, students and developers explore quantum programming together.

    Still to solveAccess to real quantum hardware does not guarantee a useful speedup. Small processors remain limited by size, errors and available operations.

    In plain EnglishQuantum circuit An ordered set of operations and measurements that describes a quantum computation.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEA real processor, reached from your desk.
    A real processor, reached from your desk.InstructionsResultsYour computerQuantum labAn ordinary internet connection

    An ordinary computer sends circuit instructions to remote hardware and receives measurement results. The quantum state stays in the processor.

    Cloud access does not itself establish a useful quantum advantage.
    Inside the idea What travels over the internet?

    A visitor submits a classical description of a circuit. IBM’s five-qubit processor performs the quantum operations at the laboratory. Measurement results return as ordinary data. A user could therefore experiment with real qubits without transporting their quantum states through the public internet.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: IBM opens cloud access to quantum hardware. IBM announced public cloud access to its quantum processor through Quantum Experience.

    How to read this date: 4 May 2016 records the launch date.

    Scope & limitations: Access is not evidence that the processor outperforms classical computers.

    The next questionAccess brings more people into the field. Research also needs institutions that can support years of development.

  29. 2016Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A bosonic logical qubit reaches memory break-even

    A protected quantum memory lasted longer than the relevant unprotected components.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment showed a memory could benefit from an error-correcting encoding.

    Keep in mindMemory break-even is narrower than universal fault-tolerant computation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A bosonic logical qubit reaches memory break-even. Ofek and collaborators extended an encoded qubit lifetime using real-time error correction in superconducting circuits.

    How to read this date: 20 July 2016 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Memory break-even is narrower than universal fault-tolerant computation.

  30. 2016Launch
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Micius launches for space-based quantum experiments

    A satellite carried quantum-optics equipment to connect distant ground stations.

    Why it mattered

    A space platform enabled long-distance entanglement and key-distribution experiments.

    Keep in mindLaunch, entanglement distribution and key distribution are distinct dated milestones.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Micius launches for space-based quantum experiments. China launched the Micius quantum-communication satellite.

    How to read this date: 16 August 2016 records the launch date.

    Scope & limitations: Launch, entanglement distribution and key distribution are distinct dated milestones.

  31. 2016Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    NIST formally calls for post-quantum cryptography proposals

    New mathematical locks were sought before large cryptographic quantum computers existed.

    Why it mattered

    An international evaluation process began turning cryptographic research into future standards.

    Keep in mindPost-quantum cryptography runs on classical computers and is distinct from quantum key distribution.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NIST formally calls for post-quantum cryptography proposals. NIST opened nominations for public-key algorithms intended to resist future quantum attacks.

    How to read this date: 20 December 2016 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Post-quantum cryptography runs on classical computers and is distinct from quantum key distribution.

  32. 2017Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Quantum signal processing improves Hamiltonian simulation

    Precisely chosen rotations help simulate a quantum system efficiently.

    Why it mattered

    Single-qubit rotations became a powerful language for constructing quantum algorithms.

    Keep in mindOptimality concerns the stated query model, not every end-to-end implementation cost.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Quantum signal processing improves Hamiltonian simulation. Low and Chuang presented an optimal Hamiltonian-simulation method based on quantum signal processing.

    How to read this date: 5 January 2017 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Optimality concerns the stated query model, not every end-to-end implementation cost.

  33. 2017Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Micius distributes entanglement over continental distances

    Two widely separated ground stations received linked quantum particles from space.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment extended entanglement distribution using satellite downlinks.

    Keep in mindThis was entanglement distribution, not the transmission of matter or a universal quantum internet.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Micius distributes entanglement over continental distances. Yin and collaborators distributed entangled photon pairs to ground locations separated by approximately 1,203 kilometers.

    How to read this date: 16 June 2017 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This was entanglement distribution, not the transmission of matter or a universal quantum internet.

  34. 2017Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution is demonstrated

    Quantum signals helped establish shared keys over a space-to-ground link.

    Why it mattered

    Space links offered another route to long-distance key establishment.

    Keep in mindSecurity depends on protocol and device assumptions; this does not make every communication system unhackable.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution is demonstrated. Liao and collaborators demonstrated decoy-state quantum key distribution between a satellite and ground stations.

    How to read this date: 9 August 2017 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Security depends on protocol and device assumptions; this does not make every communication system unhackable.

  35. 2017Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A 51-atom programmable simulator explores many-body dynamics

    Dozens of trapped atoms imitated interacting quantum matter.

    Why it mattered

    Arrays of optical tweezers became a strong platform for many-body simulation.

    Keep in mindAn analog simulation experiment is not interchangeable with universal digital computation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A 51-atom programmable simulator explores many-body dynamics. Bernien and collaborators used reconfigurable neutral-atom arrays to investigate a programmable quantum spin model with up to 51 qubits.

    How to read this date: 30 November 2017 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: An analog simulation experiment is not interchangeable with universal digital computation.

  36. 2018Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    QSVT unifies important quantum-algorithm constructions

    A common circuit technique can transform mathematical information in several useful ways.

    Why it mattered

    The framework brought several algorithmic speedups into a shared mathematical construction.

    Keep in mindInput encoding and measurement costs still matter; not every matrix task obtains an end-to-end speedup.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: QSVT unifies important quantum-algorithm constructions. Gilyen and collaborators posted a framework for quantum singular-value transformation.

    How to read this date: 5 June 2018 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: Input encoding and measurement costs still matter; not every matrix task obtains an end-to-end speedup.

  37. 2018Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    NISQ names the noisy intermediate-scale era

    Useful exploration may begin before quantum machines can run very long protected programs.

    Why it mattered

    The term helped distinguish exploratory devices from fully fault-tolerant systems.

    Keep in mindNISQ is a descriptive era, not a guarantee of commercial advantage.

    Inside the idea Why does circuit depth matter on a noisy processor?

    More sequential operations create more opportunities for error before the answer is measured. Preskill used NISQ to describe a period in which processors could manipulate many qubits but noise limited the computations they could reliably perform. Qubit count alone leaves out this constraint.

    Preskill on the NISQ era ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NISQ names the noisy intermediate-scale era. Preskill described the opportunities and limits of noisy intermediate-scale quantum technology.

    How to read this date: 6 August 2018 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: NISQ is a descriptive era, not a guarantee of commercial advantage.

  38. 2018Launch
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Europe launches the Quantum Flagship

    European institutions organized a broad quantum research and technology program.

    Why it mattered

    The initiative coordinated long-term work across several quantum-technology areas.

    Keep in mindProgram budgets and goals are commitments, not measured hardware capabilities.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Europe launches the Quantum Flagship. The European Quantum Flagship launched in Vienna with its initial research projects.

    How to read this date: 29 October 2018 records the launch date.

    Scope & limitations: Program budgets and goals are commitments, not measured hardware capabilities.

  39. 2018Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Barren plateaus reveal a training obstacle

    Some circuit choices make the training signal too flat to follow.

    Why it mattered

    The result exposed a scaling challenge for variational algorithms.

    Keep in mindIt does not prove all quantum machine learning or all variational methods fail.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Barren plateaus reveal a training obstacle. McClean and collaborators showed that broad classes of parametrized quantum circuits can have exponentially small optimization gradients.

    How to read this date: 16 November 2018 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: It does not prove all quantum machine learning or all variational methods fail.

  40. 2018Enactment
    Industry & access

    A U.S. law coordinates quantum research across agencies

    The United States enacted the National Quantum Initiative Act. It established a coordinated federal program for quantum research and development, bringing multiple agencies into a shared effort. A laboratory field was also becoming a long-term institutional priority.

    Why it mattered

    Research depends on people, facilities and sustained support. Coordination can help those pieces develop alongside the processors themselves.

    Still to solveA law organizes an effort. Authorized funding and actual spending are different, and neither demonstrates a computer’s performance.

    In plain EnglishQuantum industry The researchers, companies, suppliers, software tools and institutions working to develop and use quantum technologies.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEA field grows beyond the laboratory.
    A field grows beyond the laboratory.01Research02Tools03AccessMore people can experiment

    Research programmes, shared tools and access to hardware let more people learn, experiment and build. Each contributes a different kind of progress.

    Access and investment are not measures of computing performance.
    Inside the idea What can a research law change?

    The US National Quantum Initiative Act established a framework for coordinating federal quantum information science work. Sharing facilities, training researchers and supporting research centers address different obstacles from lowering the error of a laboratory gate. The date records the enactment of a law.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: The US National Quantum Initiative becomes law. The National Quantum Initiative Act was signed into law in the United States.

    How to read this date: 21 December 2018 records the enactment date.

    Scope & limitations: Legal authorization and future appropriations are different events.

    The next questionA wider effort needs a way to judge results. What does it mean when a quantum machine claims to beat a classical one?

PART 05 2019–Aug 2024

What do the breakthroughs really prove?

Benchmarks test difficult tasks. Encoded experiments test reliability. Security standards prepare conventional systems for possible future quantum attacks.

  1. 2019Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    IBM challenges the Sycamore classical-runtime estimate

    A quantum speedup claim can change when classical algorithms improve.

    Why it mattered

    The debate showed why benchmark claims need explicit classical baselines.

    Keep in mindIBM's proposed runtime was an estimate, not the same as a completed run.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: IBM challenges the Sycamore classical-runtime estimate. IBM argued that a different classical simulation strategy could substantially reduce the estimated cost of the Sycamore task.

    How to read this date: 22 October 2019 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: IBM's proposed runtime was an estimate, not the same as a completed run.

  2. 2019Publication
    Engineering result

    Google’s Sycamore tests the limits of classical simulation

    Google’s Sycamore processor used 53 qubits to sample results from specially constructed random circuits. The team reported a large speed advantage over its estimate of the classical computing effort needed to reproduce the task.

    Why it mattered

    Quantum processors could challenge classical simulation on a carefully chosen task, making the quality of the comparison especially important.

    Still to solveThis was not a useful general application. The classical runtime estimate was contested, and classical simulation methods subsequently improved.

    In plain EnglishBenchmark A specified test task used to compare performance under stated conditions.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEProgress needs a fair comparison.
    Progress needs a fair comparison.THE SAME CLEARLY DEFINED TASKQuantum runTask + quality + costClassical methodTask + quality + costCompare under stated conditions

    Compare the same task, output quality and relevant resources. A result on a specialized test does not prove a general advantage.

    Illustrative comparison. No performance values are implied.
    Inside the idea What counts as a fair comparison?

    The task was to sample bit strings from specified random circuits. The quantum run was measured, while the headline classical runtime was an estimate. Later classical methods narrowed the gap. To compare the approaches, match the circuits, the target sampling quality and the computing resources.

    A later classical sampling study ↗
    03 / Evidence desk · primary sources

    What did the breakthrough actually show?

    Open a paper through four questions. A mathematical proof and a hardware measurement answer different questions.

    An efficient factoring algorithm · Theoretical result

    Task
    Find the factors of an integer or compute a discrete logarithm.
    Resources
    An ideal quantum computer. Cost is counted in steps as the number of input digits grows.
    Result
    Shor showed a quantum algorithm with polynomial growth in the number of steps.
    Boundary
    The paper gives no hardware runtime for breaking a deployed encryption key.

    1994 conference presentation · August 30, 1995 expanded preprint. Read Shor’s expanded paper.

    Sources & historical detail 3 sources

    The historical record: Sycamore reports a random-circuit sampling advantage. Google reported a 53-qubit random-circuit sampling experiment and a large advantage over its estimated classical baseline.

    How to read this date: 23 October 2019 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The task was specialized; classical methods improved and the headline runtime comparison was contested.

    The next questionA difficult benchmark is one test. Another is whether the machine can keep information reliable as its protective encoding grows.

  3. 2020Launch
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Amazon Braket opens general access across hardware types

    Developers could try different quantum machines through one service.

    Why it mattered

    A common service lowered the coordination barrier to comparing platforms.

    Keep in mindCloud access and diverse hardware do not establish a useful computational advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Amazon Braket opens general access across hardware types. AWS announced general availability of Amazon Braket with simulators and access to multiple quantum-hardware technologies.

    How to read this date: 13 August 2020 records the launch date.

    Scope & limitations: Cloud access and diverse hardware do not establish a useful computational advantage.

  4. 2020Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Jiuzhang reports photonic sampling advantage

    Interfering light produced a difficult sampling distribution on a specialized photonic machine.

    Why it mattered

    Photonic hardware supplied a different route to sampling-based advantage experiments.

    Keep in mindPhoton clicks and optical modes are not directly comparable with gate-model qubit counts.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Jiuzhang reports photonic sampling advantage. Zhong and collaborators reported Gaussian boson sampling on the Jiuzhang photonic device.

    How to read this date: 3 December 2020 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Photon clicks and optical modes are not directly comparable with gate-model qubit counts.

  5. 2021Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A 256-atom simulator studies quantum phases

    Hundreds of trapped atoms became an adjustable laboratory for quantum matter.

    Why it mattered

    Larger reconfigurable arrays expanded accessible many-body experiments.

    Keep in mindThe atom count is a physical-system size, not a count of error-corrected logical qubits.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A 256-atom simulator studies quantum phases. Ebadi and collaborators studied programmable spin models in two-dimensional arrays containing up to 256 neutral atoms.

    How to read this date: 2021 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: The atom count is a physical-system size, not a count of error-corrected logical qubits.

  6. 2021Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Repetition codes exponentially suppress selected errors

    More well-controlled qubits improved protection against a chosen error type.

    Why it mattered

    Stable repeated checks moved error-suppression experiments toward larger systems.

    Keep in mindSeparate repetition-code experiments do not simultaneously protect arbitrary quantum errors as a full surface code does.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Repetition codes exponentially suppress selected errors. Google demonstrated exponential suppression of bit-flip or phase-flip errors as repetition-code size increased.

    How to read this date: 14 July 2021 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Separate repetition-code experiments do not simultaneously protect arbitrary quantum errors as a full surface code does.

  7. 2021Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Fault-tolerant primitives operate on an encoded ion qubit

    Protecting how an operation is performed can prevent one fault from spreading.

    Why it mattered

    Circuit design reduced error propagation during logical operations.

    Keep in mindThe team analyzed error information after the experiments. A scalable processor must also handle errors during an ongoing calculation.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Fault-tolerant primitives operate on an encoded ion qubit. Egan and collaborators demonstrated fault-tolerant preparation, measurement and operations on a Bacon-Shor logical qubit using trapped ions.

    How to read this date: 4 October 2021 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The team analyzed error information after the experiments. A scalable processor must also handle errors during an ongoing calculation.

  8. 2021Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Zuchongzhi expands superconducting sampling benchmarks

    A larger circuit experiment tested how difficult its output distribution was to reproduce classically.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment extended the scale of superconducting sampling comparisons.

    Keep in mindThe stated speedup depends on the benchmark and dated classical simulation estimates.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Zuchongzhi expands superconducting sampling benchmarks. Wu and collaborators reported random-circuit sampling on the Zuchongzhi superconducting processor.

    How to read this date: 25 October 2021 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The stated speedup depends on the benchmark and dated classical simulation estimates.

  9. 2021Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    IBM announces the 127-qubit Eagle processor

    A chip can grow larger while the challenge of reliable computation remains.

    Why it mattered

    The announcement marked a significant increase in IBM's integrated physical-qubit scale.

    Keep in mindRaw qubit count does not measure logical capacity, circuit quality or useful advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: IBM announces the 127-qubit Eagle processor. IBM announced Eagle, its 127-qubit superconducting processor.

    How to read this date: 16 November 2021 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Raw qubit count does not measure logical capacity, circuit quality or useful advantage.

  10. 2022Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A classical attack breaks SIDH-based SIKE assumptions

    A proposed quantum-resistant lock was broken without a quantum computer.

    Why it mattered

    The result illustrated the need for sustained cryptanalysis of post-quantum candidates.

    Keep in mindThis was a classical attack on a specific construction, not proof that all post-quantum cryptography fails.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A classical attack breaks SIDH-based SIKE assumptions. Castryck and Decru presented an efficient classical key-recovery attack on SIDH, with consequences for SIKE.

    How to read this date: 2022 records the publication date. The source catalogue specifies the year; no exact day is implied.

    Scope & limitations: This was a classical attack on a specific construction, not proof that all post-quantum cryptography fails.

  11. 2022Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Repeated surface-code correction is realized

    A small two-dimensional code repeatedly checked the information it protected.

    Why it mattered

    Both bit- and phase-error information entered repeated surface-code cycles.

    Keep in mindReported performance depends on leakage rejection and post-processing conditions.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Repeated surface-code correction is realized. Krinner and collaborators repeatedly corrected errors in a distance-three surface-code experiment using 17 physical qubits.

    How to read this date: 25 May 2022 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Reported performance depends on leakage rejection and post-processing conditions.

  12. 2022Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Borealis demonstrates programmable photonic sampling

    A configurable photonic system produced complex patterns of detected light.

    Why it mattered

    Programmable optical processing broadened photonic benchmark capabilities.

    Keep in mindA specialized sampling advantage is distinct from a universal useful-application advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Borealis demonstrates programmable photonic sampling. Madsen and collaborators reported a programmable photonic Gaussian boson-sampling experiment using time-multiplexed modes.

    How to read this date: 1 June 2022 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A specialized sampling advantage is distinct from a universal useful-application advantage.

  13. 2022Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    NIST selects its first four post-quantum algorithms

    Four candidate mathematical protections advanced toward official standards.

    Why it mattered

    The selection narrowed candidate algorithms for future migration.

    Keep in mindSelection was not final publication of the standards; final names and status differ.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NIST selects its first four post-quantum algorithms. NIST selected Kyber, Dilithium, Falcon and SPHINCS+ for standardization.

    How to read this date: 5 July 2022 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Selection was not final publication of the standards; final names and status differ.

  14. 2022Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Classical sampling methods narrow the Sycamore gap

    The classical benchmark improved after the original quantum experiment.

    Why it mattered

    Classical algorithm advances changed the comparison underlying earlier benchmark headlines.

    Keep in mindThe measured GPU-cluster runtime is distinct from the paper's projected supercomputer runtime.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Classical sampling methods narrow the Sycamore gap. Pan, Chen and Zhang reported a tensor-network method generating samples for the Sycamore benchmark on a GPU cluster.

    How to read this date: 22 August 2022 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The measured GPU-cluster runtime is distinct from the paper's projected supercomputer runtime.

  15. 2022Recognition
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Nobel Prize recognizes entanglement experiments

    Decades of tests of entanglement received a shared Nobel recognition.

    Why it mattered

    The award highlighted experiments central to modern quantum information.

    Keep in mindThe award year is separate from the dates of the recognized experiments.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Nobel Prize recognizes entanglement experiments. Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger received the Physics Nobel Prize for entanglement experiments and quantum-information foundations.

    How to read this date: 4 October 2022 records the recognition date.

    Scope & limitations: The award year is separate from the dates of the recognized experiments.

  16. 2023Launch
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Canada launches its National Quantum Strategy

    Canada set a national plan for developing quantum technologies.

    Why it mattered

    The strategy coordinated research, talent and commercialization priorities.

    Keep in mindProjected jobs and economic impacts are forecasts, not observed outcomes.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Canada launches its National Quantum Strategy. Canada launched a National Quantum Strategy backed by previously committed federal investment.

    How to read this date: 13 January 2023 records the launch date.

    Scope & limitations: Projected jobs and economic impacts are forecasts, not observed outcomes.

  17. 2023Publication
    Engineering result

    A larger quantum memory makes slightly fewer errors

    Google stored one logical qubit in two sizes of error-correcting code. The larger code averaged about 2.91% logical errors per correction cycle, compared with about 3.03% for the smaller codes. Adding more hardware had produced a small but measurable improvement.

    Why it mattered

    Every extra qubit can introduce a fault. This comparison tested whether the extra information from a larger group could outweigh those new chances for failure.

    Still to solveThe improvement was modest and concerned memory. It did not establish reliable, arbitrary computations or practical advantage.

    In plain EnglishError correction Encoding information and checking for faults so mistakes can be detected and, when possible, corrected.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEProtect information by encoding it.
    Protect information by encoding it.ONE LOGICAL QUBITErrorchecksShared encodingDiagnosticinformationDetect or correct supported errors

    A logical qubit uses a shared encoding across physical resources. Suitable checks reveal information about errors without reading the protected state directly.

    Schematic encoding, not copies of an unknown quantum state.
    Inside the idea When does adding physical qubits start to help?

    Researchers compared a distance-five surface-code memory with an ensemble of smaller distance-three memories. The larger code showed a modest average improvement in logical error per correction cycle. Extra checks help only if they identify errors more effectively than they introduce new ones.

    Read the study’s abstract on PubMed ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A larger surface code begins to outperform smaller codes. Google reported that a distance-five logical surface-code qubit modestly outperformed average distance-three counterparts.

    How to read this date: 22 February 2023 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The improvement was modest and did not demonstrate arbitrary fault-tolerant computation.

    The next questionProtecting memory is only part of the job. Researchers also need operations on the information they have encoded.

  18. 2023Launch
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Japan opens access to a domestically built superconducting system

    Researchers gained remote access to a quantum processor developed in Japan.

    Why it mattered

    The launch broadened national access to experimental quantum hardware.

    Keep in mindThe March 27 service launch differs from the March 24 announcement and later repost dates.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Japan opens access to a domestically built superconducting system. A Japanese research consortium began cloud service for its domestically developed superconducting quantum computer.

    How to read this date: 27 March 2023 records the launch date.

    Scope & limitations: The March 27 service launch differs from the March 24 announcement and later repost dates.

  19. 2023Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    India approves the National Quantum Mission

    India committed to a coordinated national effort in several quantum technologies.

    Why it mattered

    The program organized research across computing, communication, sensing and materials.

    Keep in mindProgram approval is not proof that its future technical goals have been met.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: India approves the National Quantum Mission. India's Cabinet approved the National Quantum Mission.

    How to read this date: 19 April 2023 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Program approval is not proof that its future technical goals have been met.

  20. 2023Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    IBM reports error-mitigated calculations beyond brute-force simulation

    Repeated noisy experiments can be combined to estimate selected ideal results.

    Why it mattered

    The work tested whether noisy processors could yield useful scientific information.

    Keep in mindThe paper did not prove general practical advantage; later classical approximations changed comparisons.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: IBM reports error-mitigated calculations beyond brute-force simulation. Kim and collaborators reported accurate observables from noisy 127-qubit experiments using error mitigation.

    How to read this date: 14 June 2023 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The paper did not prove general practical advantage; later classical approximations changed comparisons.

  21. 2023Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A classical response simulates the IBM utility benchmark

    A new classical method reproduced important parts of a prominent quantum test.

    Why it mattered

    The response demonstrated the importance of evolving classical baselines.

    Keep in mindThis result concerns the selected benchmark circuits, not all quantum computations.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A classical response simulates the IBM utility benchmark. Begusic and Chan posted a sparse-Pauli method for efficiently simulating circuits studied in IBM's utility experiment.

    How to read this date: 28 June 2023 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: This result concerns the selected benchmark circuits, not all quantum computations.

  22. 2023Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    IBM introduces Heron and Quantum System Two

    Quantum hardware development included both better chips and the systems that operate them.

    Why it mattered

    The announcement emphasized modular infrastructure and improved circuit quality.

    Keep in mindCo-located processors do not automatically form one entangled large processor.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: IBM introduces Heron and Quantum System Two. IBM introduced the Heron processor and announced operation of Quantum System Two with three Heron processors.

    How to read this date: 4 December 2023 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Co-located processors do not automatically form one entangled large processor.

  23. 2023Publication
    Engineering result

    Trapped atoms run sampling circuits with up to 48 logical qubits

    Researchers held atoms in laser light, then grouped them to encode quantum information. Some circuits used up to 48 logical qubits to generate samples. The team could detect certain errors and exclude the affected runs when analyzing the results.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment tested whether groups of encoded qubits could work together on a circuit. Keeping track of how many runs survive the error checks matters when comparing its performance.

    Still to solveDetecting errors and rejecting affected runs helped the results. This was not 48 fully error-corrected qubits running arbitrary long calculations.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEProtect information by encoding it.
    Protect information by encoding it.ONE LOGICAL QUBITErrorchecksShared encodingDiagnosticinformationDetect or correct supported errors

    A logical qubit uses a shared encoding across physical resources. Suitable checks reveal information about errors without reading the protected state directly.

    Schematic encoding, not copies of an unknown quantum state.
    Inside the idea What does it mean to operate on an encoded qubit?

    A group of atoms represents a logical qubit. Reconfiguring atom arrays lets the processor perform operations between such groups. In some experiments, detecting errors and discarding affected runs improved the accepted results. That differs from correcting errors while retaining every run.

    NIST’s record of the atom-array study ↗
    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Reconfigurable atom arrays operate encoded logical circuits. Bluvstein and collaborators demonstrated a programmable neutral-atom logical processor with experiments reaching 48 logical qubits.

    How to read this date: 6 December 2023 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Error-detected and postselected sampling is not equivalent to arbitrary fully corrected computation.

    The next questionHardware experiments continue. Meanwhile, the possibility of stronger machines already calls for changes to ordinary security systems.

  24. 2024Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Low-overhead quantum LDPC memory designs advance

    Different code structures may protect information using fewer physical resources.

    Why it mattered

    The work explored lower physical-qubit overhead than comparable surface-code examples.

    Keep in mindReported memory performance was calculated under specified noise models, not demonstrated on the proposed hardware.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Low-overhead quantum LDPC memory designs advance. Bravyi and collaborators presented a high-threshold fault-tolerant memory protocol using low-density parity-check codes.

    How to read this date: 27 March 2024 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Reported memory performance was calculated under specified noise models, not demonstrated on the proposed hardware.

  25. 2024Preprint submission
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Trapped-ion logical qubits beat physical circuit baselines

    A carefully encoded circuit can fail less often than its physical counterpart.

    Why it mattered

    Encoding and repeated correction became measurable improvements in selected circuits.

    Keep in mindImprovement factors depend on circuit choice and postselection; there is no single universal multiplier.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Trapped-ion logical qubits beat physical circuit baselines. Paetznick and collaborators posted experiments showing lower logical error rates than corresponding physical circuits on a trapped-ion QCCD processor.

    How to read this date: 2 April 2024 records the preprint submission date.

    Scope & limitations: Improvement factors depend on circuit choice and postselection; there is no single universal multiplier.

  26. 2024Standard
    Security standard

    NIST publishes standards for shared keys and digital signatures

    Two computers may need a shared secret to protect a connection. They may also need to verify who signed a message or software update. NIST finalized one post-quantum standard for establishing a shared key and two for digital signatures.

    Why it mattered

    Software and hardware makers could start implementing the same published specifications. These methods run on ordinary computers and are designed to withstand known quantum attacks.

    Still to solveThese methods run on ordinary computers. Publishing the standards did not mean that quantum computers could already break deployed encryption.

    In plain EnglishPost-quantum cryptography Mathematical security methods designed to resist classical and quantum attacks, without requiring quantum hardware.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEPreparation can start on ordinary computers.
    Preparation can start on ordinary computers.01InventoryFind vulnerable cryptography02TestCheck suitable replacements03MigrateUpdate conventional systems

    Identify vulnerable cryptography, test replacements and plan migration. Post-quantum cryptography is designed to run on conventional systems.

    A migration path, not a prediction of when encryption will be broken.
    Inside the idea Which security jobs do the three standards cover?

    ML-KEM helps two parties establish a shared secret. ML-DSA and SLH-DSA let a recipient verify a digital signature. All three run on ordinary computers. Selecting which one to deploy starts with identifying the job the current cryptography performs.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NIST publishes three finalized post-quantum standards. NIST finalized FIPS 203, 204 and 205 for ML-KEM, ML-DSA and SLH-DSA.

    How to read this date: 13 August 2024 records the standard date.

    Scope & limitations: These are classical cryptographic standards; finalization does not mean quantum computers can already break deployed RSA.

    The next questionSecurity can prepare before a large quantum computer arrives. Back in the lab, reliability still has to be demonstrated.

PART 06 Sep 2024–2026

Can all the pieces work reliably together?

Stronger memory results and increasingly integrated experiments tackle the engineering ahead. Meanwhile, organizations prepare their ordinary systems for future change.

  1. 2024Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Microsoft and Quantinuum report 12 entangled logical qubits

    More encoded qubits were demonstrated, alongside a limited hybrid chemistry example.

    Why it mattered

    The announcement extended logical-state demonstrations and connected them with a small application workflow.

    Keep in mindThe chemistry demonstration was not claimed as scientific advantage over the best classical methods.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Microsoft and Quantinuum report 12 entangled logical qubits. Microsoft and Quantinuum reported 12 logical qubits and a hybrid chemistry demonstration using two logical qubits.

    How to read this date: 10 September 2024 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: The chemistry demonstration was not claimed as scientific advantage over the best classical methods.

  2. 2024Publication
    Engineering result

    On Willow, larger codes roughly halve memory errors at each step

    Google tested three sizes of surface code, a layout that uses neighboring qubits to check for errors. Each step up in size reduced the logical error rate per correction cycle by about a factor of two. All three sizes stored a single logical qubit.

    Why it mattered

    In 2023 the improvement from a larger code had been small. Willow showed a much steeper drop in errors across the sizes tested, bringing longer-lived quantum memory closer.

    Still to solveThe result protected quantum memory. It did not demonstrate a large computer performing arbitrary useful calculations with full error correction.

    In plain EnglishBelow threshold Errors are low enough that increasing the error-correcting code’s size improves protection.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEThree sizes. One stored qubit.
    Three sizes. One stored qubit.Increasing surface-code distanceDistance 3Distance 5Distance 7Logical memory errors per cycleAbout half at each step up in distance

    Willow’s team compared surface-code distances 3, 5 and 7. Increasing the distance by two roughly halved the chance of a logical error per correction cycle in this experiment.

    The squares indicate increasing code size. Each stores one logical qubit. The measurement concerns memory.
    Inside the idea How is “below threshold” visible in a memory?

    Researchers increased the surface code’s distance and measured fewer logical errors per cycle. Larger encodings protected one stored qubit more effectively over the distances tested. A working computation would also require reliable logical gates and coordination between protected qubits.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Willow demonstrates below-threshold surface-code memories. Google reported surface-code memories on Willow whose logical errors decreased as code distance increased.

    How to read this date: 9 December 2024 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This was a quantum-memory result, not arbitrary fault-tolerant computation. A 28 April 2026 correction fixes the repetition-code axis and legend labels in Figure 3a.

    The next questionA stronger memory result raises the next challenge: can storage, operations and error correction work together?

  3. 2025Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Aurora integrates modular photonic computing components

    A photonic prototype brought many required functions into one connected system.

    Why it mattered

    A complete modular architecture could be exercised at prototype scale.

    Keep in mindThe paper explicitly describes a sub-performant scale model; billions of temporal modes are not billions of usable qubits.

    Inside the idea What did connecting the modules establish?

    Aurora linked the preparation, processing and measurement of light in a modular photonic system. Its authors described it as a scale model. Counting optical modes used over time measures one aspect of the apparatus; it does not count useful logical qubits operating simultaneously.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Aurora integrates modular photonic computing components. Xanadu's Aurora experiment integrated photonic chips, networking, feedforward and error-decoding functions in a scale-model system.

    How to read this date: 22 January 2025 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The paper explicitly describes a sub-performant scale model; billions of temporal modes are not billions of usable qubits.

  4. 2025Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Separated ion modules execute a distributed quantum algorithm

    Two quantum modules worked together through a light-based connection.

    Why it mattered

    Gate teleportation connected modular hardware to algorithm execution.

    Keep in mindThe small distributed demonstration is not a large fault-tolerant network.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Separated ion modules execute a distributed quantum algorithm. Main and collaborators distributed computations between photonically linked trapped-ion modules separated by about two meters.

    How to read this date: 5 February 2025 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The small distributed demonstration is not a large fault-tolerant network.

  5. 2025Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Microsoft reports parity measurement in hybrid devices

    A device measured a property needed by one proposed route to protected qubits.

    Why it mattered

    Parity readout is relevant to proposed topological quantum-computing architectures.

    Keep in mindThis paper alone does not establish a working topological qubit or the broader Majorana 1 claims. A later published critique disputes the topological interpretation.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Microsoft reports parity measurement in hybrid devices. Microsoft researchers reported interferometric single-shot parity measurement in InAs-Al hybrid devices.

    How to read this date: 19 February 2025 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: This paper alone does not establish a working topological qubit or the broader Majorana 1 claims. A later published critique disputes the topological interpretation.

  6. 2025Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Concatenated cat qubits demonstrate hardware-efficient correction

    One protective layer suppresses certain faults while another checks the remaining dominant type.

    Why it mattered

    Intrinsic error bias was combined with active correction to reduce resource overhead.

    Keep in mindSuppression of biased errors does not establish a universal asymptotic threshold for the repetition code.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Concatenated cat qubits demonstrate hardware-efficient correction. AWS researchers demonstrated a logical memory combining bosonic cat qubits with an outer repetition code.

    How to read this date: 26 February 2025 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Suppression of biased errors does not establish a universal asymptotic threshold for the repetition code.

  7. 2025Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Zuchongzhi-3 reports a larger superconducting sampling experiment

    A larger chip ran a specialized circuit-sampling benchmark.

    Why it mattered

    The result extended a superconducting sampling benchmark family.

    Keep in mindThe speedup is task-specific and estimate-dependent; 105 physical qubits are not 105 logical qubits.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Zuchongzhi-3 reports a larger superconducting sampling experiment. USTC reported a 105-qubit processor and an 83-qubit random-circuit sampling benchmark with estimated classical difficulty.

    How to read this date: 3 March 2025 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: The speedup is task-specific and estimate-dependent; 105 physical qubits are not 105 logical qubits.

  8. 2025Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    NIST selects HQC for additional standardization

    A backup approach was chosen to avoid relying on only one mathematical family.

    Why it mattered

    A different mathematical family provided a diversification option.

    Keep in mindSelection is not final standard publication and does not replace ML-KEM.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NIST selects HQC for additional standardization. NIST selected HQC as an additional key-establishment algorithm for standardization.

    How to read this date: 11 March 2025 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Selection is not final standard publication and does not replace ML-KEM.

  9. 2025Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    IBM announces the Starling fault-tolerance roadmap

    A company published a plan for a larger protected machine.

    Why it mattered

    The roadmap tied error-correction design, modularity and planned hardware milestones together.

    Keep in mindStarling's 200 logical qubits by 2029 are a roadmap target, not a delivered capability.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: IBM announces the Starling fault-tolerance roadmap. IBM announced a roadmap targeting a 200-logical-qubit Starling system by 2029.

    How to read this date: 10 June 2025 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Starling's 200 logical qubits by 2029 are a roadmap target, not a delivered capability.

  10. 2025Recognition
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Nobel Prize honors macroscopic quantum effects in circuits

    Quantum effects were demonstrated in electrical circuits large enough to engineer directly.

    Why it mattered

    The award highlighted experimental roots of superconducting quantum technology.

    Keep in mindThe recognized experiments occurred in the 1980s; 2025 is the award date.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Nobel Prize honors macroscopic quantum effects in circuits. The Physics Nobel Prize recognized John Clarke, Michel Devoret and John Martinis for tunneling and energy quantization in electrical circuits.

    How to read this date: 7 October 2025 records the recognition date.

    Scope & limitations: The recognized experiments occurred in the 1980s; 2025 is the award date.

  11. 2025Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Quantum Echoes reports verifiable benchmark outputs

    A carefully reversed quantum evolution made selected chaotic-system signals measurable and comparable.

    Why it mattered

    The work emphasized outputs that can be checked across quantum systems.

    Keep in mindThe separate molecular demonstration remained within classical reach; it is distinct from the benchmark advantage claim.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Quantum Echoes reports verifiable benchmark outputs. Google reported a Quantum Echoes experiment measuring out-of-time-order correlators and a claimed advantage over tested classical methods.

    How to read this date: 22 October 2025 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: The separate molecular demonstration remained within classical reach; it is distinct from the benchmark advantage claim.

  12. 2025Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    DARPA advances teams in its quantum benchmarking program

    Technical plans were advanced to a more detailed government evaluation stage.

    Why it mattered

    The program organized independent evaluation of plans for utility-scale quantum computing.

    Keep in mindSelection is an evaluation step, not certification of useful quantum advantage.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: DARPA advances teams in its quantum benchmarking program. DARPA reported selecting 11 companies for Stage B of its Quantum Benchmarking Initiative.

    How to read this date: 6 November 2025 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: Selection is an evaluation step, not certification of useful quantum advantage.

  13. 2025Publication
    Engineering result

    An atom processor combines correction, logic and qubit reuse

    A neutral-atom processor demonstrated several ingredients needed for reliable quantum computation, including repeated error correction, logical operations and reusing atoms during a computation. The work connected capabilities that must eventually function together in a larger machine.

    Why it mattered

    A useful computer needs an integrated design for storing, processing and refreshing protected information, not just a large qubit count.

    Still to solveThese were demonstrations of building blocks and architecture. They did not establish a fully scaled machine solving practical problems beyond classical reach.

    In plain EnglishFault tolerance Designing operations so that faults remain manageable by error correction, rather than spreading uncontrollably.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEA qubit needs a whole support system.
    A qubit needs a whole support system.Classical control signalsReadout → ordinary data

    Control signals prepare and manipulate physical qubits. Readout turns measurements into ordinary data. Accuracy matters alongside the number of qubits.

    Conceptual hardware. Real platforms use different physical designs.
    Inside the idea Why is reusing an atom during a circuit significant?

    An atom can be measured, reset and put to work again while other encoded information remains in the processor. The neutral-atom architecture combined such reuse with logical operations and repeated correction. Scaling these ingredients into long computations remains a separate test.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Neutral-atom architecture combines fault-tolerance building blocks. Bluvstein and collaborators reported a neutral-atom architecture for universal fault-tolerant processing.

    How to read this date: 10 November 2025 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: An architecture and demonstrated components are not a completed large-scale fault-tolerant computer.

    The next questionDifferent hardware approaches tackle these problems differently. One newer approach protects memory with fewer active control steps.

  14. 2026Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Dynamic surface-code circuits expand design options

    Error-checking patterns can change over time to fit a machine more effectively.

    Why it mattered

    Changing the correction circuit can address constraints imposed by hardware and leakage.

    Keep in mind13 January 2026 dates the research-team explanation. The underlying Nature Physics paper was published on 17 October 2025.

    Sources & historical detail 2 sources

    The historical record: Dynamic surface-code circuits expand design options. Google described experiments with dynamic surface-code circuits using altered connectivity, moving roles and alternative entangling gates.

    How to read this date: 13 January 2026 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: 13 January 2026 dates the research-team explanation. The underlying Nature Physics paper was published on 17 October 2025.

  15. 2026Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Reinforcement learning stabilizes ongoing error correction

    Error checks can teach the controller how to keep the hardware tuned.

    Why it mattered

    Calibration and correction could cooperate without the traditional complete stop-and-recalibrate cycle.

    Keep in mindThe demonstrated drift tests and numerical scaling studies have different evidentiary status.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Reinforcement learning stabilizes ongoing error correction. Sivak and collaborators used quantum-error detections to train control adjustments during operation of a Willow quantum memory.

    How to read this date: 8 July 2026 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The demonstrated drift tests and numerical scaling studies have different evidentiary status.

  16. 2026Announcement
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    IBM and Chicago announce encoded-circuit benchmark results

    An error check let the team discard suspect runs and estimate how closely the remaining results matched the intended quantum state.

    Why it mattered

    For a hard sampling task, even checking the answer can strain a classical computer. The experiment used the structure of the circuit itself to estimate its accuracy.

    Keep in mindThe July announcement described 70 encoded qubits. The September revision reports a 64-qubit circuit encoded using 76 physical qubits. Its estimate of fidelity depends on the device and on selecting runs that pass error checks.

    Sources & historical detail 3 sources

    The historical record: IBM and Chicago announce encoded-circuit benchmark results. IBM and the University of Chicago announced a verifiable sampling result using 70 encoded logical qubits.

    How to read this date: 30 July 2026 records the announcement date.

    Scope & limitations: The July announcement described 70 encoded qubits. The September revision reports a 64-qubit circuit encoded using 76 physical qubits. Its estimate of fidelity depends on the device and on selecting runs that pass error checks.

  17. 2026Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    A silicon array maintains high-quality parallel single-qubit control

    Several silicon qubits were controlled together while limiting interference between their controls.

    Why it mattered

    The work addressed calibration and crosstalk challenges in parallel control.

    Keep in mindSingle-qubit fidelity is not full-circuit fidelity and does not certify a fault-tolerant computer.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: A silicon array maintains high-quality parallel single-qubit control. Wu and collaborators demonstrated high-fidelity simultaneous single-qubit gates in a five-qubit silicon-spin array.

    How to read this date: 15 October 2026 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: Single-qubit fidelity is not full-circuit fidelity and does not certify a fault-tolerant computer.

  18. 2026Publication
    ARCHIVE MILESTONE

    Surface-code states undergo teleportation on a processor

    Quantum information encoded across many qubits can participate in teleportation protocols.

    Why it mattered

    The experiment linked encoded states, entanglement and teleportation transitions.

    Keep in mindThe experiment transferred encoded states within a processor. Connecting separate processors reliably is a further step.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Surface-code states undergo teleportation on a processor. Zou and collaborators demonstrated teleportation of surface-code states with code distances up to seven on a superconducting processor.

    How to read this date: 22 October 2026 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The experiment transferred encoded states within a processor. Connecting separate processors reliably is a further step.

  19. 2026Publication
    Engineering result

    A trapped ion protects a memory without a measurement loop

    Researchers stored one logical qubit in several internal states of a trapped ion. Engineered interactions and cooling with a second ion removed errors without repeated measurement and feedback, extending memory lifetime beyond the unprotected comparison.

    Why it mattered

    Reliable quantum hardware is being pursued through different approaches. Some can reduce the extra controls normally needed for error correction.

    Still to solveThis protected quantum memory under specified noise conditions. It did not demonstrate universal computation or remove the need for further engineering.

    In plain EnglishBreak-even A memory benchmark. The protected and comparison memories are equally long-lived at break-even. Beyond it, the protected memory lasts longer.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEA qubit needs a whole support system.
    A qubit needs a whole support system.Classical control signalsReadout → ordinary data

    Control signals prepare and manipulate physical qubits. Readout turns measurements into ordinary data. Accuracy matters alongside the number of qubits.

    Conceptual hardware. Real platforms use different physical designs.
    Inside the idea How can a memory shed an error without measuring it?

    The logical qubit occupies several internal states of one ion. Engineered interactions transfer error information into motion, and a second ion helps cool that motion. The resulting memory outlasted the unprotected comparison under the tested noise conditions without a repeated measurement-and-feedback loop.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: Autonomous trapped-ion correction passes memory break-even. Li and collaborators reported autonomous quantum error correction using internal ion states and engineered dissipation, extending memory lifetime beyond break-even.

    How to read this date: 23 October 2026 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: The result is a quantum-memory demonstration under specified noise conditions, not universal computation.

    The next questionProgress in memory remains distinct from a complete machine. Organizations can still prepare for the possibilities ahead.

  20. 2026Publication
    Security standard

    NIST maps how to replace vulnerable cryptography

    In 2024, NIST published standards for new cryptographic tools. Its 2026 transition report connects the old tools to their replacements. An organization can use the report to identify which of its key-establishment and signature methods need to change.

    Why it mattered

    Replacing a cryptographic method can mean changing many products that must still communicate with one another. The report helps organizations plan that work while quantum hardware continues to develop.

    Still to solvePost-quantum cryptography runs on ordinary computers. A migration roadmap does not predict when a quantum computer will break deployed encryption.

    In plain EnglishPost-quantum cryptography Security methods designed to resist attacks from both classical and future quantum computers.

    THE IDEA, MADE VISIBLEPreparation can start on ordinary computers.
    Preparation can start on ordinary computers.01InventoryFind vulnerable cryptography02TestCheck suitable replacements03MigrateUpdate conventional systems

    Identify vulnerable cryptography, test replacements and plan migration. Post-quantum cryptography is designed to run on conventional systems.

    A migration path, not a prediction of when encryption will be broken.
    Inside the idea What is an organization actually migrating?

    A service may use one public-key mechanism to establish secrets and another to sign messages. NIST’s transition report connects vulnerable mechanisms with standardized replacements. The decision concerns which services and keys need to change, independently of when a quantum computer could attack them.

    Sources & historical detail 1 source

    The historical record: NIST finalizes its post-quantum transition roadmap. NIST released the final IR 8547 roadmap for transition from quantum-vulnerable algorithms to post-quantum standards.

    How to read this date: 27 October 2026 records the publication date.

    Scope & limitations: A migration timetable is not a prediction of the date a quantum computer will break deployed cryptography.

    The next questionThe story has no finish line yet. Read each new claim by asking what was tested, against which comparison and with what limits.

THE CURRENT CHAPTER 2026

Real machines. A great deal still to build.

The story has moved from discovering quantum rules to controlling small systems, writing algorithms and protecting information. Researchers can run quantum processors and demonstrate increasingly capable error-corrected components. Combining these into large, reliable and useful computations remains a major engineering challenge.

What exists

Working processors, cloud access and experiments with protected quantum information. Their capabilities depend on the task and the hardware.

What to ask next

What problem was solved? At what error rate? Compared with which classical method? Was the result a memory, an operation or a complete computation?

This is a research history, not a promise of commercial readiness. The dated experiments and their limitations appear immediately above.

Learn to read a quantum claim

Keep the story connected.

Revisit an unfamiliar idea or look inside the machine when you are ready.

How this timeline is researched

The key milestones are a curated introduction to a 217-event source catalogue. Dates distinguish publications, presentations, experiments and announcements. A discovery can have several contributors and several relevant dates; this timeline does not claim a single inventor for the whole field. Source notes preserve those distinctions and the limits of each result.

Main-story research reviewed 2 November 2026. “The next question” connections explain our editorial reading sequence; neighboring events are not necessarily direct causes of one another. Earlier links to individual milestones still open the same historical records. The smaller diagrams are teaching illustrations, not experimental data.

Our editorial standards ↗
Read, question, follow the source

A useful way to read this page

Choose a route according to the question you want it to answer.

Reader guideTopics: use the field guides as overlapping views of one questionConnect a definition, a system interface and an evidence test across the guides already available.Context reviewed

A quantum topic often crosses several field guides. Start with one question, then identify the definition, the interface and the evidence needed to answer it. For a hybrid computation, the algorithm guide explains the intended task, the hardware guide explains what executes, and the benchmark guide helps define a meaningful comparison.

Use a small example to connect the guides. An OpenQASM program needs both language semantics and a backend capability contract. A photonic model needs an input state, an optical transformation and a detector model. A calibration workflow needs a measured signal, a fit and an acceptance rule before its updated parameter is reused.

Keep a short note of what each guide contributes and what it leaves open. A definition is useful without proving that a product implements it; a working interface is useful without proving an advantage. The career projects and video learning routes provide exercises for testing these distinctions.

Questions to take with you

Should I read the guides in numbered order?

The numbering is a navigation aid. Choose the guide that answers the least familiar part of your question, then follow a justified connection to another guide if needed.

What if my subject has no dedicated guide?

Use a relevant source-linked article or resource and keep that distinction clear. Do not assume that an absent guide means the subject is unimportant or that a new route has been published.

Sources and their boundaries (1)
  • QubitWire Topics and Field Guides ↗QubitWire

    Field guides, related reading and evidence tools.

    The guides cover selected subjects. Follow the source links for details beyond each guide.

Back to the beginning ↑