En teknologi som, dersom den noen gang ble praktisk i romtemperatur og ved atmosfærisk trykk, ville revolusjonert hele vårt teknologiske samfunn. Gitt at [[Superledere]] utnytter en kvanteeffekt, er det ikke helt utenkelig at [[Kvantesimulering]] kan hjelpe oss å oppnå denne hellige gralen—hvis den i det hele tatt er oppnåelig, da! Se også: [Potential Applications of Quantum Computing at Los Alamos National Laboratory](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.06625), kap 5: "High-temperature superconductivity and exotic properties of FermiHubbard models" #### Fra [[Kvantekjemi]]-tutorial ved [[QIP'24]]: Så vidt jeg forstår fra [Quantum Chemistry tutorial](https://youtu.be/Eo_iiDJmp4w?si=uNY9IZOZgOeJfKcP) på [[QIP'24]] ... > We don't know how to predict what material will be the next high-temperature superconductor, nor do we know, even with the existing materials, how to tweak them to make high-temperature superconductors. > Note: While high temperature superconductivity remains "unsolved", there is substantial partial knowledge from experiment and theory. In studying the (Fermi-)[Hubbard Model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbard_model) ... > For groundstates, the current status is that we have a good idea about what the ground state is like in many parts of the phase diagram with complete certainty, but then there are other parts of the phase diagram where you have *some* idea, like there are some candidates, but again, you can't resolve which one exactly is the ground state, because they are very similar in energy. For example, two competing ground states could be one superconducting ground state and one which is not superconducting (inhomogenous charge distribution). The Hubbard model can get within roughly 1% accuracy, but to resolve the energy ordering of the different candidates you would need roughly 0.1% accuracy. So we need a ten-fold accuracy increase to move forward ... Maybe quantum computers can give us that? > I will point out that when people say that they don't know what the ground state is of the Hubbard model, people of course have many ideas about what it is, and it is important to point out that all of these ideas involve classicaly very simple states. So it's not the case that there is this mysterious ground state that is classically intractable to describe, but the problem is that these different proposals for states-that-are-not-very-difficult-to-describe, one can't resolve between them.