Drexler's Nanotechnology and Quantum Computers
John Clark
Classical computers struggle with molecules because the number of possible electron interactions grows exponentially with every atom added. To find the "lowest energy state" (the shape a sequence will naturally fold into), a classical computer has to make massive approximations.
A quantum computer, however, uses qubits that can exist in superposition, allowing them to map the quantum states of a molecule directly.
The Forward Problem: Predicting shape from a sequence (e.g., Protein Folding).
The Inverse Problem (Your Point): Designing a sequence to achieve a specific, pre-determined shape.
By solving the Schrödinger equation for large molecules more efficiently than any classical supercomputer, a quantum computer could allow us to "program" matter with near-perfect predictability.
2. Bridging the Gap to Drexlerian Nanotechnology
Eric Drexler’s vision of Molecular Manufacturing (as described in Engines of Creation) relies on "mechanosynthesis"—the ability to use molecular-scale tools to place atoms in specific locations.
The primary hurdle to building these "nanofactories" has always been the design-test cycle. Currently, we have to synthesize a sequence, let it fold, and use X-ray crystallography or Cryo-EM to see if we got it right.
With Error-Corrected QC: We could simulate the entire assembly process in a "virtual laboratory" with 100% fidelity.
Sequence Optimization: We could use quantum algorithms to search the nearly infinite "sequence space" to find the exact nucleotide or amino acid string that creates a rigid, diamondoid-structure component or a molecular gear.
3. The Role of Error Correction
You correctly identified Error-Corrected Qubits as the prerequisite. Current NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) devices are too "leaky" to handle the long, complex calculations required for large-scale DNA or protein design.
To design a functional Drexlerian assembler, we would likely need Logical Qubits (groups of physical qubits working together to cancel out errors). Once we reach that threshold, we move from "trial and error" chemistry to "intentional" molecular engineering.
Comparison: Classical vs. Quantum Molecular Design
| Feature | Classical Simulation | Quantum Computing (Error-Corrected) |
| Complexity Scaling | Exponential (slows down fast) | Polynomial (scales efficiently) |
| Accuracy | High-level approximations | Near-perfect quantum fidelity |
| Design Method | Statistical "best guess" | Direct energy-state calculation |
| Nanotech Application | Basic "DNA Origami" | Complex mechanical nanomachines |
Is there a "But"?
The only major caveat is that while a QC can tell you what sequence to build, we still need the physical "printer" (like a high-fidelity DNA synthesizer or a ribosome-like assembler) to turn that data into physical matter. However, the QC would arguably provide the blueprints that make building those printers possible in the first place.
==
ME: Can you give me the timeline of how many error corrected logical Qubits companies like Google and IBM expect to have in the next few years.
Gemini: The extrapolation you’ve made is essentially the consensus vision for the "Quantum Utility" era. By solving the inverse design problem (shape to sequence), quantum computers could act as the CAD software for molecular assemblers.
As of early 2026, we are in the "milestone" phase of error correction. Most major players have moved past simple physical qubit counts and are now racing toward Logical Qubit (LQ) capacity.
Here is the projected timeline for logical qubits from the industry leaders:
Projected Timeline: The Rise of Logical Qubits
| Year | Milestone | Key Player Projections |
| 2026 | The Proof of Life | Google: Aims to demonstrate a "long-lived" logical qubit (one that survives millions of operations). IBM: Focuses on "Quantum Advantage" workflows using error-mitigation (pre-fault tolerance). |
| 2027–2028 | Early Scientific Utility | Quantinuum/Microsoft: Expected to reach 50–100 LQs. This is the threshold for simple molecular simulations (e.g., small catalysts). Pasqal: Targets ~20 LQs using neutral-atom arrays. |
| 2029–2030 | The 200 LQ Threshold | IBM: Roadmap targets the "Starling" system with 200 logical qubits capable of 100 million gates. Google: Milestone 6 targets a million-physical-qubit system, yielding ~1,000 LQs. IonQ: An aggressive target of 80,000 logical qubits by 2030. |
| 2033+ | Industrial Scaling | IBM: Targets the "Blue Jay" system with 2,000+ logical qubits, enough to begin complex protein and nanomachine design. |
Key Player Strategies
Google (Superconducting): Their roadmap is milestone-driven. Having achieved "threshold" (where adding more qubits makes the error rate go down), they are now scaling to a million physical qubits to net a high-fidelity logical array.
IBM (Superconducting/Modular): IBM is betting on modularity. Their 2029 "Starling" system is designed specifically for the type of fault-tolerant operations needed to simulate chemical bonds accurately.
Microsoft & Quantinuum (Ion Trap/Topological): They recently demonstrated 12 logical qubits with 800x better error rates than physical ones. Their approach requires fewer physical qubits per logical qubit, which could allow them to hit the 100-LQ mark faster than Google or IBM.
IonQ (Trapped Ion): IonQ uses a different metric ("Algorithmic Qubits"), but their recent 2030 projection is the most optimistic in the industry, aiming for tens of thousands of logical units.
The "Nanotech Threshold"
For the specific task you mentioned—designing DNA/RNA sequences for Drexler-style nanotechnology—researchers estimate we need approximately 100 to 1,000 high-fidelity logical qubits.
At 100 LQs: We can accurately simulate the folding of small, functional protein motifs and synthetic DNA "bricks."
At 1,000 LQs: we can begin simulating "mechanosynthesis"—the actual movement of a molecular tool tip to place a carbon atom into a diamondoid lattice.
Current Reality Check (Jan 2026)
We are currently transitioning from the NISQ era (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) to the Resilient era. While we don't yet have a machine that can "print" a Drexlerian assembler, the hardware needed to design one is expected to emerge between 2028 and 2032.
John K Clark